Introduction / Context:
The decision to increase external assistance is justified by low per-capita health expenditure. That rationale presupposes insufficiency of domestic resources, but it does not require the stronger claim that the increase will fully close the international gap.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Decision: Double WHO assistance to India.
- Reason cited: India’s per-capita health spend is very low compared to many countries.
- Assumption I: The increase will put India on par with others.
- Assumption II: Domestic (government) funding is inadequate to meet needs.
Concept / Approach:
- External supplementation implies domestic deficiency or constraints.
- Parity with other countries is an aspirational end-state, not a prerequisite for deciding to increase aid.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II is necessary: If domestic funding were adequate, the core reason for increasing external aid would be undermined.Assumption I is unnecessary: Aid can be doubled without expecting immediate parity; any improvement may justify the action.
Verification / Alternative check:
Drop II: The rationale for aid collapses. Drop I: The decision remains sensible (incremental improvement is still worthwhile).
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I / Either / Neither / Both: These impose an outcome (parity) that is not required by the decision logic.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a reason to improve with a guarantee of matching international benchmarks.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments