Only I is implicit. II is not implicit because of the word 'radical'.
I goes into details. Hence, I is not implicit. But II is implicit; that is why the opposition leader issues such a statement.
I is irrelevant. Hence I is not implicit. But II is implicit; that is why the speaker suggests the stringent punishment.
Here II is irrelevant. Hence, II is not Implicit. But I must have been assumed by the politician; otherwise how can the status of industrial progress be related with unemployment?
I is implicit because this is the motive behind increasing the fine. II is not implicit because of the second part of the statement.
The advertisement is based on the following assumptions:
* Learners want to solve more and more question in less time.
* Learners want to solve DI without written steps.
* It is possible to solve Quantitative Aptitude in 3 seconds.
* Penalty in case of failure of claime will make a positive impact on readers of the ad; etc.
Hence, I is not implicit. II is obvious. That is why the advertisement goes like this.
We have nothing substantial to correlate the given assumptions. Neither I nor II is implicit.
The initiative taken by the government is aimed at delving into the reasons of the mysterious death and also at punishing the guilty. Order of magisterial inquiry implies that the government must be assuming I. Why has the entire staff of police station X been transferred? The government must be assuming II also.
The statement does not mention anything regarding repayment structure or collateral security. Hence, neither I nor II is implicit.
The timeframe given by the government implies that the government must be assuming that the time given is adequate for operators to declare pay channel rates. Hence, assumption I is not implicit. Assumption II is not implicit because it is beyond the scope of the statement.
Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.