Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions Statement: “Bombay (Mumbai) people were spellbound, mesmerized, and went wild when they saw Michael Jackson’s hi-tech, pulsating, megawatt performance.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Shows accompanied by cutting-edge technology can have a magical effect on audiences. II. Bombay audiences were never impressed by Indian musicians. III. Michael Jackson is a superstar-level performer.
-
AOnly I is implicit
-
BOnly II is implicit
-
COnly I and III are implicit
-
DEither II or III is implicit
-
EOnly II and III are implicit
Answer
Correct Answer: Only I is implicit
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The sentence reports an extraordinary audience reaction to Michael Jackson’s show, explicitly calling out its “hi-tech” and “megawatt” nature. We must discern which assumptions must hold to support the described impact without importing unwarranted generalizations.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Observation: The audience reaction in Mumbai was extreme and enthusiastic.
- I: Advanced show technology can intensify audience response.
- II: Mumbai audiences have never been impressed by Indian musicians.
- III: Michael Jackson is a superstar-grade singer/performer.
Concept / Approach:The statement ties reaction to the character of the performance—“hi-tech, pulsating.” It does not compare Indian artists with MJ nor claim a universal lack of appreciation for them. Nor does it need the evaluative label “super singer” to explain the cited reaction; the sentence already grounds the effect in the spectacle.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Link cause and effect: tech-rich staging → heightened audience reaction. I aligns with this causal explanation and is necessary.Assess II: The claim about Indian musicians is off-topic and extreme; the statement neither implies nor requires it.Assess III: While MJ’s fame is background knowledge, the statement’s rationale is the show’s hi-tech spectacle. The audience reaction could be explained without assuming an evaluative status like “super singer.” Hence III is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:If a different global act used similar spectacular production, a similar reaction could occur, supporting reliance on I rather than II or III.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Only II / Only II and III / Either II or III: Import irrelevant or extreme claims.
- Only I and III: Adds an unnecessary performer-quality assumption.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing production value effects with judgments about entire classes of performers; over-attributing impact to celebrity status when the cited cause is explicit.
Final Answer:Only I is implicit