Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only assumption I is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The directive aims to restrict information flow by prohibiting members from briefing the press. We must identify what must be true for issuing such a directive to be a rational step toward the intended communication control.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:For the directive to be effective, compliance is a necessary assumption. However, II asserts a guaranteed outcome (complete secrecy among the public), which is stronger than needed. Information can still leak via other channels (documents, non-member staff, investigative reporting). The order does not require a guarantee of total secrecy—only an attempt to reduce disclosures via members.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Check I: Without member compliance, the directive would be pointless. Therefore I is implicit.Check II: Even with compliance, the public might still learn details through other means. Hence II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: If members will not observe the directive, it fails in purpose. Negate II: Public may still know via leaks; the directive could still be rational as a deterrent measure. Thus I is necessary; II is not.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II (option b) ignores the prerequisite of compliance.Either (option c) and Both (option e) overstate the necessity of II.Neither (option d) is incorrect because I must hold.Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that a communication ban guarantees total secrecy rather than merely reducing authorized disclosures.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit
Discussion & Comments