Introduction / Context:
The statement attributes causality—indeed, root causality—to money for family problems. To make such a claim coherent, we must accept that problems have causes. Whether every family always has problems is not necessary for the content of the claim.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Claim: For family problems (whenever they exist), money is the fundamental cause.
- Assumption I: Problems (as a class) have causes; causal explanation is meaningful.
- Assumption II: Every family always faces some problems.
Concept / Approach:
- A root-cause statement presupposes that a causal structure exists (Assumption I).
- It does not require that problems are omnipresent; it speaks to causation where problems occur.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I is indispensable: without causation, calling money the root cause would be nonsensical.Assumption II is unnecessary: the claim can stand even if some families have no problems at some times. It only addresses the problems that do occur.
Verification / Alternative check:
Eliminate I: The claim collapses. Eliminate II: The claim remains meaningful for cases where problems exist.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II, Either, Neither, Both either add an unneeded universality or ignore the causal prerequisite.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading “all problems” as “there are always problems,” which is a different assertion.
Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit
Discussion & Comments