Introduction / Context:
Public safety advisories typically follow disturbances. Here, authorities request residents to stay indoors due to a tense, uncontrolled situation. We must determine what must be true for such a request to be rational and necessary.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Tension and lack of control are explicitly stated.
- Assumption I: Serious incidents have occurred (or are highly probable).
- Assumption II: People will not go to the office.
- Assumption III: Normalcy will return soon.
Concept / Approach:
The request presupposes a credible threat, usually evidenced by serious incidents. It does not need predictions about office attendance or timelines for restoration to justify the directive.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is implicit: the advisory implies danger due to incidents or imminent risk; without such gravity, a stay-home request would be unwarranted.II is not implicit: the advisory does not assume outcomes; it only instructs. Compliance is hoped for, but “will not go to office” is a consequence, not a premise.III is not implicit: no timeline is stated; advising caution does not presuppose quick restoration.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: with no serious incidents or risk, the instruction lacks justification—contradicting the statement’s intent.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options adding II or III assume future behavior or timeframes that are not required.“All” and “None” ignore the evident safety premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing recommendations with guaranteed behavior; assuming timelines from safety notices.
Final Answer:
Only I is implicit
Discussion & Comments