Introduction / Context:
The sentence attributes a causal role to Mandela’s long imprisonment in his eventual presidency. However, causal attributions do not automatically generalize to universal rules or required qualifications. We must test whether either strong generalization is actually assumed by the statement.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Specific claim: Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment contributed to him becoming President.
- Assumption I: Only those imprisoned 27 years can become President (a universal condition).
- Assumption II: Imprisonment is a qualification for presidency (a necessary criterion).
Concept / Approach:
From the occurrence of one historical path, we cannot infer a universal necessity or exclusivity. The statement is about a singular, notable case, not a rule for all. Therefore, neither I nor II is required for the statement to make sense.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Check I: “Only who will be imprisoned for 27 years will become the President” is an extreme universalization not implied by a single example.Check II: Treating “imprisonment” as a formal qualification is also unwarranted. Many presidents have never been imprisoned.Hence, the original statement makes a causal observation about one person’s journey, without assuming either universal rule.
Verification / Alternative check:
If both I and II are false, the original sentence can still be true for Mandela's specific case. Thus neither is necessary.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options a, b, c, e presume at least one sweeping generalization that the statement does not require.
Common Pitfalls:
Mistaking a particular causal narrative for a universal norm or qualification criterion.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is implicit
Discussion & Comments