Introduction / Context:
This is a classic statement–assumption question from logical reasoning. A policy directive has been issued by the Central Government to the State Governments to cut expenditure, citing a resource crunch and a likely pause on additional grants for six months. We must determine which assumptions must be true for the directive to be meaningful.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Austerity directive from the Centre to the States.
- No additional grants likely for six months.
- Assumption I: States are totally dependent on the Centre for expenditure.
- Assumption II: The Centre has reviewed the States’ expenditure accounts.
- Assumption III: States will abide by the directive.
Concept / Approach:
In assumption problems, we look for what must hold true (not what is merely plausible). A directive has force only if the issuer expects compliance. Factual details like “total dependence” or “a completed review” may or may not be true; they are not necessary for the directive’s logic.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I: “Totally dependent” is too strong. States have their own revenues and borrowings; the directive does not presuppose total dependence. Not implicit.Assumption II: The Centre may or may not have completed a detailed review; fiscal stress alone can justify a blanket directive. Not implicit.Assumption III: Issuing the directive presumes it will be taken seriously and followed. Otherwise, it would be pointless. Implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negate III: If States will not abide, the directive fails in purpose—making the original statement irrational. Thus III is required.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All are implicit” overstates I and II.“Only II and III” wrongly includes II.“None is implicit” ignores the compliance premise (III).
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing what is helpful (a prior review) with what is necessary (expected compliance).
Final Answer:
Only III is implicit
Discussion & Comments