The statement says, "Retired persons should not be appointed for the posts in organisations." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Retired persons may lack the zeal and commitment required to carry out executive work. 2. Retired persons do not take interest in the work and welfare of new organisations.

Introduction / Context:
This question deals with assumptions behind a recommendation about employment. The statement suggests that retired persons should not be appointed to posts in organisations. The assumptions relate to the perceived attitude and capacity of retired persons. We must identify which assumption the statement depends on, without adding extra prejudice or extreme views that go beyond what is needed to justify the recommendation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Retired persons should not be appointed for posts in organisations.
• Assumption 1: Retired persons may lack zeal and commitment to effectively carry out executive work.
• Assumption 2: Retired persons do not take interest in the work and welfare of new organisations at all.
• The statement is a general recommendation, not a description of particular individuals.

Concept / Approach:
To recommend that retired persons should not be appointed, the speaker must believe that there is some risk or drawback in appointing them. A natural assumption is that retired persons may lack energy, initiative, or commitment compared to younger employees. That idea is reflected in Assumption 1. Assumption 2, however, is much stronger, claiming that retired persons do not take any interest in work or organisational welfare. Such an absolute claim is not necessary for the statement; it is enough if retired persons are seen as less suitable on average. Therefore, we have to see that one moderate assumption is sufficient, while the extreme one is not required.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider the reasoning behind the recommendation. If the speaker felt that retired persons work as energetically as others, there would be no need to exclude them completely.Step 2: Assumption 1 provides a reasonable explanation: some retired persons may lack zeal and commitment, which can affect executive responsibilities.Step 3: The statement does not require that retired persons have zero interest; it only suggests that they are not the best choice for appointments.Step 4: Assumption 2 claims that retired persons do not take interest in work and welfare of new organisations at all, which is an extreme and unrealistic generalisation.Step 5: Since the recommendation can be based on milder concerns, Assumption 2 is not necessary for the statement to hold.

Verification / Alternative check:
If we deny Assumption 1 and say retired persons always have full zeal and commitment, the recommendation would become baseless.If we deny Assumption 2 and accept that some retired persons do show interest in organisational welfare, the recommendation can still stand on the belief in average lower zeal.Hence only Assumption 1 is implicit, while Assumption 2 is too strong and not needed.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is wrong because the statement does not require such an extreme and negative belief about retired persons.Option C is wrong because the statement clearly needs Assumption 1, while Assumption 2 is not required.Option D is wrong because at least one assumption, the first one, is clearly implied by the recommendation.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes assume that a recommendation must always be based on the strongest and most negative statement, which is not necessary.Another pitfall is failing to distinguish between a moderate concern (may lack zeal) and total lack of interest, which is rarely required as an assumption.

Final Answer:
Thus only the first assumption is implicit in the recommendation, so the correct answer is Only 1 is true.