Introduction / Context:
This statement asserts a causal and exclusive claim: participative management is the only way to curb indiscipline and thereby ensure workers’ quality of life. To sustain this, the author must presuppose a link between indiscipline and quality of life, but not that current quality is already good.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Claim: Participative management contains indiscipline and ensures quality of life.
- Assumption I: Current industrial quality of life is better (i.e., already good).
- Assumption II: Indiscipline harms quality of life; reducing it improves quality of life.
Concept / Approach:
- To say “contain indiscipline and ensure quality of life,” one must assume indiscipline affects quality of life.
- Nothing in the statement requires that present quality of life is already better; in fact, the prescription typically implies current issues.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II is necessary: without a causal link between indiscipline and poor quality of life, controlling indiscipline would not ensure quality of life.Assumption I is not necessary and likely false; the need for policy change suggests current quality is not adequate.
Verification / Alternative check:
Eliminate II: The core claim loses its mechanism. Eliminate I: The claim still stands, perhaps even strengthened.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I, Either, Neither, Both: These either import an unnecessary positive status quo or ignore the needed causal link.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a proposed remedy with an assertion that things are already good.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments