Statement — “Given that his ministry includes several hawala-tainted ministers, the Prime Minister has a moral obligation to resign,” says a politician. Assumptions — I. The politician is not close to the Prime Minister. II. The politician wants to promote moral principles in politics.
-
Aif only Assumption I is implicit
-
Bif only Assumption II is implicit
-
CIf either Assumption I or II is implicit
-
Dif neither Assumption I nor II is implicit
-
Eif both Assumption I and II are implicit
Answer
Correct Answer: if only Assumption II is implicit
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The speaker argues from a moral standpoint: because ministers are “hawala-tainted,” the Prime Minister should resign. This presupposes a commitment to moral accountability in public office, not anything about personal closeness to the PM.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Ministry has tainted members.
- Claim: PM has a moral duty to step down.
- I: speaker is not close to PM (irrelevant to the argument’s logic).
- II: speaker favors moral standards in politics (supports the moral claim).
Concept / Approach:For a moral-duty claim to be advanced sincerely, the speaker must value ethical principles in political conduct. The speaker’s relationship to the PM is neither required nor implied by the reasoning.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the basis: “moral obligation.”2) Moral basis implies the speaker endorses moral norms in politics (II).3) Whether the speaker is close to the PM (I) does not affect the claim’s validity; it is not presupposed.Verification / Alternative check:Even a close ally could advocate resignation on moral grounds; thus I is not necessary.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I: irrelevant.Either: cannot be; I is not needed.Neither: wrong because moral advocacy (II) is presupposed.Both: includes unnecessary I.Common Pitfalls:Confusing background motives or relationships with logical presuppositions.
Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.