Introduction / Context:
The reason given for Arun’s move is salary inadequacy. We must see which background beliefs must be true for this to be rational.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I: The new company has a better work environment.
- II: Arun’s present company offers only a moderate/insufficient pay package.
- III: The new company pays a higher salary to all employees.
Concept / Approach:
- An assumption is necessary only if the action relies on it.
- Arun’s stated motive is salary; nothing is said about work environment (I).
- He needs a higher salary offer for himself, not a universal higher scale for everyone (III).
Step-by-Step Solution:
II is required: the present salary is inadequate, hence characterized as moderate/low for his needs.I is optional/unknown: environment could be better, worse, or the same; decision is justified by pay alone.III is unnecessary: it suffices that Arun’s own offer is higher; a blanket statement about all employees is not needed.
Verification / Alternative check:
If II were false (present pay already adequate), the move contradicts the reason provided. If I or III were false, the move can still be justified by Arun’s own package.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All are implicit” overreaches; “II and III” adds needless generalization; “None” ignores the explicit inadequacy premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming generalized policies of the new employer when only an individual offer matters.
Final Answer:
Only II is implicit
Discussion & Comments