Consider the following argument as true and decide which of the given assumptions is implicit. Argument: Public smoking is an offence under the law. Assumptions: (1) Smoking is injurious to the health of the person who smokes. (2) Smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places.

Introduction / Context:
This logical reasoning question tests your understanding of implicit assumptions behind a legal rule. The given argument states that public smoking is an offence under the law. You must decide which assumptions are necessarily taken for granted in order for this argument to make sense. Recognising implicit assumptions is important in critical reasoning, because they reveal the hidden beliefs that support the explicit statement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Argument: Public smoking is an offence under the law.
• Assumption 1: Smoking is injurious to the health of the person who smokes.
• Assumption 2: Smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places (passive smokers).
• We must decide which of these assumptions is logically required for the law to treat public smoking as an offence.

Concept / Approach:
Laws that specifically ban a behaviour in public usually focus on harm to other people or to society, not only on self harm. Therefore, when public smoking is declared an offence, the law is likely based on the idea that second hand smoke harms bystanders who have not chosen to smoke. An assumption is implicit if the argument depends on it, even if it is not stated. An assumption is not implicit if the argument could still stand without it.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The argument says that public smoking is an offence. This is a legal restriction on smoking in public spaces.Step 2: Ask why the law would focus on public smoking rather than all smoking. The key difference is that in public places, other people are forced to inhale the smoke.Step 3: Assumption 2 states that smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places. If this were not true, there would be little reason to single out public smoking as an offence. The law could simply focus on educating smokers, rather than criminalising behaviour that affects only themselves.Step 4: Therefore, the idea that second hand smoke harms bystanders is necessary for the argument that public smoking should be a legal offence.Step 5: Assumption 1 says that smoking harms the smoker. This may be true, but it is not essential for the specific legal rule about public smoking. A government might still outlaw public smoking even if it did not care about self harm, simply to protect non smokers from involuntary exposure.Step 6: Hence the argument depends on assumption 2, but not necessarily on assumption 1.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine a world where smoking does not harm the smoker at all but does harm nearby non smokers. In that world, public smoking would still reasonably be an offence because it harms others. Now imagine the opposite world where smoking harms only the smoker but has no effect on others. In that case, the justification for making public smoking a legal offence becomes much weaker, because bystanders are not affected. This confirms that assumption 2 is central, while assumption 1 is not required for the given argument.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a: Both assumptions being implicit is incorrect, because the argument can stand without relying on harm to the smoker.
• Option b: Only assumption 1 is implicit is wrong, since the legal focus on public spaces is driven by harm to others, not only self harm.
• Option d: Neither assumption is implicit ignores the clear need to assume that second hand smoke harms people in public places.
• Option e: This is a vague restatement and does not correctly identify which assumption is needed.

Common Pitfalls:

• Confusing what is medically true with what is logically necessary for the argument. Both assumptions may be factually true, but only one is logically required here.
• Thinking that every fact mentioned around smoking must be assumed, instead of focusing on what specifically justifies public smoking as a legal offence.
• Ignoring the difference between harm to self and harm to others, which is crucial in public law questions.

Final Answer:
The only assumption that is logically implicit is that smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places.