Consider the following editorial-style statement and the assumptions that follow. Statement: "Clearly, the judiciary cannot provide all answers. But it seems the public, weary of an inactive Executive, is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resort," says an article. Which of the following assumptions is or are implicit in this statement?

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of implicit assumptions in critical reasoning. You are given a statement about the public turning to the Supreme Court because the Executive is inactive. You must decide which background beliefs the author must be taking for granted in order for the statement to make sense. These hidden beliefs are called implicit assumptions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: The judiciary cannot answer everything, but the public, tired of an inactive Executive, is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resort.

• Assumption (i): The Supreme Court is above the Executive.

• Assumption (ii): The Supreme Court is more active than the Executive.

• Assumption (iii): The Executive does not have sufficient powers.

• We must identify which assumptions are necessarily presupposed by the statement for it to be meaningful and persuasive.

Concept / Approach:
An assumption is implicit when the statement would lose its force or become unreasonable if that assumption were not true. It need not be explicitly stated, but it must be taken for granted. We check each of the three given assumptions and ask: if this were false, would the original statement still make clear sense?

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The core idea in the statement is that the Executive is inactive, and because of this, the public is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resort. Step 2: For people to turn to the Supreme Court due to Executive inaction, they must believe that the Supreme Court is at least more responsive or more active than the Executive. Otherwise, going there as a last resort would not be logical. This supports assumption (ii). Step 3: The statement does not say that the Supreme Court is above the Executive in the constitutional hierarchy; it only indicates that people seek relief there. Even bodies not constitutionally "above" the Executive can be approached for remedies. So assumption (i) is not required. Step 4: The statement blames the Executive for being inactive, not for lacking powers. An Executive can be powerful yet unwilling to act. Therefore, assumption (iii) about insufficient powers is not necessary; the problem is described as inaction, not powerlessness. Step 5: Thus, only assumption (ii) must be implicit for the argument in the article to work.

Verification / Alternative check:
If assumption (ii) were false and the Supreme Court were equally inactive or more inactive than the Executive, the public would have no reason to turn to it as a last resort. The entire logic of seeking relief there would collapse. On the other hand, even if assumption (i) or (iii) are false, people could still turn to the Court simply because they think it actually acts, which confirms that only (ii) is truly implicit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A and Option B wrongly include assumptions (i) or (iii), which are not necessary to explain the public's behaviour. Option C combines (i) and (iii), both of which are unnecessary. Only assumption (ii) must be true for the statement to make sense, so any option that adds extra assumptions is incorrect.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often confuse what is factually true in the real world with what is logically required by the argument. Another common mistake is to treat every plausible background idea as an assumption, instead of checking whether the statement truly depends on it. Always test each proposed assumption by temporarily negating it and seeing whether the original statement still holds together logically.

Final Answer:
The only assumption that is definitely implicit in the statement is that the Supreme Court is more active than the Executive, so the correct option is that only assumption (ii) is implicit.