Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only assumption II is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Budget statements often reveal organizational priorities. Here, there is “no regular fund” for welfare activities this year. We must decide which assumption is required for this statement to carry the implied consequence about running welfare activities.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Lack of a dedicated budget suggests that planned, routine welfare activities may not proceed. That inference hinges on the necessity of budgetary provision, not on a categorical claim about organizational desire (they might still want welfare but lack funds, or plan ad-hoc grants).
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption I is too strong. Desire could exist despite non-provision; other sources (donor funds, CSR reallocation) could be explored.Assumption II is necessary for the statement’s practical implication: if welfare requires a budget line, then “no provision” makes routine welfare unlikely.Verification / Alternative check:
Negate II: if welfare can proceed without budget, then the absence of provision would not signal anything significant—contradicting the import of the statement.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only/Both/Either exaggerate intent; the key is feasibility via budget, not desire.Neither ignores the obvious role of budgets in planned activities.Common Pitfalls:
Equating “no budget” with “no desire,” which need not follow.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments