Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement predicts public rejection if core constitutional features are altered or communal harmony is disturbed. We must determine which background belief must hold for the warning to be meaningful.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
A cautionary assertion typically presumes a relevant impetus or threat; otherwise, it is idle. It does not require knowledge of who is speaking, only that there is some contemplated or ongoing action that could trigger public rejection.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: The partisan identity of the speaker (opposition leader) is not necessary. The statement could be made by any civic figure, jurist, or even a member of the ruling party. Hence I is not required.Assess II: The warning presumes that the government (or an actor with power) is moving toward amendments or actions affecting basic structure/harmony. Without such a move, the assertion loses immediacy and point. Hence II is necessary.
Verification / Alternative check:
If no moves were being made, there would be no reason to declare people “are bound to reject” them; the statement would be gratuitous. The identity of the speaker does not change the logic.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Both/either” wrongly include I; “neither” contradicts the need for a triggering context; “only I” misses the action context entirely.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming political context is always required; here, only the policy/action context is necessary.
Final Answer:
if only assumption II is implicit.
Discussion & Comments