Introduction / Context:
The forum complains about a delay despite an “immediate effect” announcement. The implicit belief needed is that the elapsed time should have sufficed for implementation; the complaint does not rely on any general praise or criticism of banks’ usual care.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Fact claimed: Two months have passed with no arrears credited.
- Assumption I: Most banks normally care well for pensioners.
- Assumption II: Two months is enough to operationalize the payout after such an announcement.
Concept / Approach:
- A grievance about delay presupposes a benchmark of reasonable implementation time.
- The complaint does not require any characterization of banks’ routine behavior toward pensioners.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II is necessary: Without believing two months is adequate for processing, the grievance would lack force.Assumption I is irrelevant to the argument; the point is the current failure relative to an urgent directive, not banks’ general care level.
Verification / Alternative check:
Drop II: The complaint weakens because the delay might be reasonable. Drop I: The complaint remains intact.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I, Either, Neither, Both misidentify what the delay-based argument depends on.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a specific procedural delay critique with a broad evaluation of service quality.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments