Question 1

Statement–Assumption — “It is not always true that only an intelligent person can qualify the written examination for Probationary Officers (POs).” Assumptions: I. An intelligent person can qualify the written examination for POs. II. A person who i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement rejects the exclusivity claim that only intelligent people qualify the PO written exam. We must determine which beliefs must be true for this rejection to hold meaningfully. Given Data / Assumptions: Target claim negated: exclusivity of intelligence as a qualifying condition. Focus: existence of qualifiers outside the “intelligent” set. Concept / Approach: To say “not only intelligent can qualify” minimally presupposes that non-intelligent (or less-intelligent/other traits like diligent, well-prepared) candidates can also qualify (Assumption II). It does not need to presume that intelligent people can qualify (I); even if some intelligent candidates fail, the point is about exclusivity, not sufficiency or certainty for intelligence. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate: “Only intelligent qualify” is false → There exists at least one qualifier who is not intelligent → II is necessary.2) I is not necessary: the claim does not guarantee outcomes for intelligent candidates; it only denies exclusivity. Verification / Alternative check: From logic: “Not (Only A are B)” implies “Some B are not A.” It does not assert “All A are B.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: “I only” misreads the negation; “either/both” overcommit; “neither” ignores the existential claim about non-intelligent qualifiers. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “only A” with “all A” and overlooking the existential counterexample needed to refute exclusivity. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 2

Statement–Assumption — Mr. X says: “Human rights are only for human beings, not for terrorists. Protesting for those found guilty of terrorism insults human rights.” Assumptions: I. Terrorists do not deserve sympathy. II. Acts of terrorism are again…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker draws a harsh boundary: those convicted of terrorism do not merit human-rights advocacy. This stance rests on moral judgments about terrorism and those who commit it. Given Data / Assumptions: The statement concerns those “found guilty,” i.e., convicted terrorists. It labels support for them as an “insult” to human rights. Concept / Approach: For the conclusion to follow, (I) the speaker must believe terrorists do not deserve sympathy or rights-claims—otherwise protesting on their behalf would not be objectionable. Also, (II) the acts themselves are seen as affronts to humanity; if terrorism were not against humanity, the clash with “human rights” would be incoherent. Together, these premises justify the statement’s strong normative rejection. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I (no sympathy), labeling advocacy as an “insult” would be inconsistent.2) Without II (terrorism against humanity), the linkage between terrorism and renunciation of human-rights claims collapses. Verification / Alternative check: Public discourse often predicates denial of moral standing on the belief that the underlying acts violate basic human values. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” lacks the foundational evaluation of terrorism; “Only II” lacks the stance on sympathy; “either” under-supports; “neither” contradicts the rhetoric. Common Pitfalls: Missing that the statement embeds both a devaluation of perpetrators and a condemnation of the act. Final Answer: if both I and II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement–Assumption — A scientist says: “Finding higher resistance in malarial parasites is significant because the analysis used modern DNA sequencing. Although the sample size was only 50, there could be no doubt about the result.” Assumptions: I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The scientist expresses confidence in a result despite a small sample, citing the use of modern DNA sequencing. We must determine which background belief is required to justify that confidence. Given Data / Assumptions: Method: modern DNA sequencing. Sample size: only 50 (acknowledged as small). Conclusion: “no doubt” in the result. Concept / Approach: The justification explicitly leans on the method’s credibility. Thus (I) is necessary: the scientist presumes modern techniques deliver higher accuracy/validity than older methods, offsetting some concerns about limited n. By contrast, (II) is the opposite of standard statistical reasoning; smaller samples usually reduce precision. The scientist never claims smaller n improves reliability; therefore II is not implicit. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Link confidence to method quality: modern DNA sequencing → higher trust → supports “no doubt.”2) Reject II: it contradicts statistical principles and is not suggested by the statement. Verification / Alternative check: Even when asserting strong confidence, researchers typically invoke superior methodology, not the virtue of small samples. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II,” “either,” or “both” mischaracterize the role of sample size; “neither” ignores the explicit method-based confidence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the speaker endorses all implications of what is mentioned (e.g., small sample → better) rather than the specific rationale offered (method quality). Final Answer: if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 4

Statement: "Our state does not need State Human Rights Commission, therefore we have abolished State Human Rights Commision." - CM of state 'X' Assumptions: I. There will be no cases of violation of human rights in state 'X'. II. State 'X' has alter…

Accepted Answer

It is not clear from the statement what the CM is exactly assuming. But the tone of the statement implies he must be assuming either I or II.

Question 5

Statement: " We need to instil a sense of pride among the people for the rich cultural heritage of the country and its various regions." - Speaker of the Lok Sabha Assumptions: I. Culture is what gives meaning to our lives and identity to us a socia…

Accepted Answer

Why the need to instil such a sense of pride among the people? The speaker must be assuming I. II is not implicit because one does not desire for a need unless one assumes it to be feasible.

Question 6

Statement: Faculty of a reputed institute 'Y' has advised the students to buy Magical Book Series of BSC Publishing Co if they do not want to miss the opportunities of being recruited as PO in PNB. Assumptions: I. Students may ignore the advice and …

Accepted Answer

Note that if one advises others to purchase a thing X, the former assumes that the latter have enough money to purchase it.

Question 7

Statement: "Always use zebra crossings and subways to cross the road safely." - A notice by the City Traffic Police Assumptions: I. Road safety is not an option but a must for pedestrians. II. Safety can be increased by making people aware of tips r…

Accepted Answer

Both I and II are implicit. Why did the city traffic police need to issue such a notice? It must have assumed II. Again the word 'always' used in the notice makes I implicit.

Question 8

Statement: "High-tension wire can be extremely dangerous. Keep a safe distance from them." - A notice by Delhi Transco Limited Assumptions: I. High-tension wires are laid in complete accordance with the law along routes that are legally approved by …

Accepted Answer

Both I and II can't be correlated with the statement. Hence, neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 9

Statement: "Honourable citizen of state, 'X' please rise and rat on your power- thrieving neighbour. You could win a motorcycle, a colour TV set or a washing machine." __ UPPCL Assumptions: I. In order to get these gadgets, people of state 'X' will …

Accepted Answer

I is an assumption because the statement uses the gadgets as an allurement. II is obvious. Note that the initiative is aimed at improving the financial condition of the company by reducing theft. Hence, the company must be assuming II.

Question 10

Statement: "Irrespective of who comes to power, what is of prime importance is to heal the badly shaken lives of the people of state 'X' with the assurance that things would not go haywire in future." - A citizen of state X Assumptions: I. The tenet…

Accepted Answer

I is implicit. The "badly shaken lives" will be headed through development. "That things would not go haywire" can be assured through good governance. II is not implicit: we don't know whether the image of the state has been tarnished.

Question 11

Statement: "There should not be any delay in filing a complaint. If a policeman is not helpful or harasses a woman, the victim should note his name and belt number and send a complaint to senior officials specifying the place where he was on duty."-…

Accepted Answer

How can an illiterate person wright the name and belt number of erring policemen? Hence, the speaker must be assuming I. Again, the instruction to send a complaint to senior officials implies that the speaker must be assuming II also.

Question 12

Statement: "Buy durable pillows of company 'X' . The pillows have been made from 100% imported downs and feather; have the natural property to take the contour and shape of your head, neck and shoulder while you sleep; and are very popular abroad as…

Accepted Answer

I is implicit; that is why the advertisement emphasises the popularity of product abroad as well as in domestic market. The natural property focussed on in the ad is conducive to facilitating sound sleep. Hence, II is also implicit.

Question 13

Statement: "Oil the wheels that India moves on" is the cry of bicycle manufacturers in the country. Assumptions: I. The bicycle and components industry is a priority focus area possessing capability of thrusting export. II. Bicycle is the most affor…

Accepted Answer

I may or may not be an assumption. But II is obviously implicit. That is why the manufacturers need to oil the wheels that India moves on.

Question 14

Statement: "No representative is authorised to collect cash. Do not pay cash to anybody. All subscribers are requested to make payments only through cheques/DD in favour of the company." - An instruction to subscribers by company X Assumptions: I. I…

Accepted Answer

Only I is implicit. Why does the company need to issue such instruction? It must be assuming I. The motive behind the instruction may be to ensure convenience in keeping the records regarding transaction of the company. Hence, II is not implicit.

Question 15

Statement: "Please do not display a damaged or dishevelled flag." - Ministry of Home Affairs Assumptions: I. Damaged and dishevelled flag is an indicator of the deteriorating condition of a country. II. When a flag is damaged or soiled, it should be…

Accepted Answer

if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 16

Statement: "On this auspicious occasion of Republic Day let us take the resolution to help the drought-affected 4.3 crore population and 4.5 crore livestock of the state." - An appeal by the CM of state X to its citizens Assumptions: I. Citizens' pa…

Accepted Answer

I may or may not be an assumption. But II is obvious. That is why the CM appeals for people's participation.

Question 17

Statement–Assumption — “Better understanding and cooperation among exporters is needed. Effort should be to complement each other rather than compete among ourselves.” — View of an agriculturist Assumptions: I) Exporters stand to lose if they act as…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests the staple “statement–assumption” skill: identify the minimum background belief that must be true for the recommendation to make sense. The statement proposes that exporters should coordinate and complement each other rather than compete internally. The speaker is motivated by market outcomes that would improve if rivalry among exporters were softened in favor of coordination. Given Data / Assumptions: Recommendation: exporters ought to complement, not compete. Goal: better outcomes for the exporter community and the sector. Two candidate assumptions: (I) competition among exporters causes loss; (II) farmer–industry cooperation is highly effective. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to be rational, the speaker must believe that intra-exporter competition is harmful relative to coordination. That is exactly Assumption I: exporters lose—e.g., by undercutting each other in foreign markets, fragmenting bargaining power, or duplicating costs—when they compete head-to-head instead of pooling strengths (quality standards, logistics, market intelligence). Assumption II is about a different axis (farmer–industry cooperation). Although such cooperation may be good, the speaker’s sentence strictly addresses cooperation among exporters, not farmers and industry; therefore II is not necessary for the stated recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate the prescription: shift from rivalry to complementarity among exporters.2) Identify the needed premise: rivalry is net harmful (I).3) Check materiality of II: it discusses a different cooperative link and is not a prerequisite. Verification / Alternative check: If exporter competition were harmless or beneficial, urging complementarity would lack force. Conversely, the statement would still make sense even if farmer–industry cooperation were neutral; hence II is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” misreads the subject; “either” overgenerates; “neither” ignores the harm-from-rivalry premise; “None of these” would be correct only if both were needed, which they are not. Common Pitfalls: Dragging in appealing but off-scope partnerships (farmers–industry) instead of focusing on the exact relationship mentioned (exporter–exporter). Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement–Assumption — “The TV industry requests the government to lower customs duty on colour picture tubes to 10% so that colour TV sales can reach 10 million units next fiscal.” Assumptions: I) Excess protection for the domestic CPT industry has…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An industry lobby seeks a tariff cut on a key component (colour picture tubes) to spur downstream sales (colour TVs). In assumption problems, we ask: what belief must the requester hold for the request to be coherent? Given Data / Assumptions: Policy sought: reduce CPT customs duty to 10%. Claimed effect: push CTV sales to 10 million in the next fiscal. Assumption I: present protection impedes CTV growth (e.g., raises costs/prices). Assumption II: overprotection leads to predatory pricing by domestic producers. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: the ask presumes that the current tariff elevates costs enough to dampen demand, and that lowering it will expand sales volume. Without that causal link, the request lacks justification. Assumption II introduces a specific market-conduct claim (predatory pricing) that is not required to argue for a tariff cut; the industry can rationally demand lower input tariffs even if no predation occurs, simply because it lowers retail prices and boosts affordability. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Connect tariff → component cost → TV price → unit sales.2) Recognize that the only needed premise is that the current tariff is a binding growth constraint (I).3) Note that allegations about predation (II) are not necessary to the sales-growth logic. Verification / Alternative check: Even in perfectly competitive domestic CPT markets (no predation), a tariff cut still reduces costs and can raise quantity demanded; therefore II is not essential. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” divorces the request from its core price-cost mechanism; “either” overstates; “neither” denies the obvious cost pass-through premise; “None of these” implies both are required, which is false. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a sufficient extra complaint (predation) with a necessary premise. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 19

Statement–Assumption — Bottled water companies X and Y deny contamination: “Our products are made under rigorous quality control meeting all BIS standards.” Assumptions: I) Production under rigorous quality control yields trustworthy (safe) results.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The companies rebut contamination allegations by citing two pillars: (1) “rigorous quality control,” and (2) conformity to BIS standards. In argument analysis, when a defence invokes two independent supports, the speaker typically presupposes both supports are credible and relevant. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: water is not contaminated. Support A: rigorous QC during production. Support B: compliance with BIS standards. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is required because the defence appeals to QC; if rigorous QC could still yield untrustworthy outputs, invoking it would not reassure. Assumption II is also required since the defence leverages BIS compliance; if BIS were not recognized as the legitimate standard-setter, that appeal would be toothless. Therefore the argument relies on both I and II. However, the option set does not include “both I and II.” In such cases, the correct selection is “None of these,” which stands for “none of the four preceding patterns (only I / only II / either / neither) describes the situation,” leaving “both” as the implied resolution. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify each cited warrant (QC and BIS) and its corresponding assumption.2) Test necessity: removing either warrant undermines the defence’s persuasive force.3) Map to choices: since “both” is absent, pick “None of these.” Verification / Alternative check: Real-world corporate responses regularly pair internal process assurances with external standard compliance precisely because both together build credibility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/II” ignores one pillar; “either” treats them as substitutes, but both are claimed; “neither” contradicts the structure of the defence. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that “None of these” often encodes the “both” case when not otherwise provided. Final Answer: None of these (both Assumptions I and II are implicit).

Question 20

Statement–Assumption — “By 2010, India will be the country with the greatest number of heart patients.” Assumptions: I) It is possible to determine and compare the number of heart patients across countries. II) By 2010, India will be the most popula…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The prediction ranks India at the top by count of heart patients. To make any cross-country “greatest number” claim, one must assume that the underlying counts are measurable and comparable. Population rank is not strictly necessary for such a medical-burden ranking, because prevalence and risk factors vary. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: India will have the highest count of heart patients by 2010. Assumption I: cross-national counts are obtainable and comparable. Assumption II: India will be the most populated country by 2010. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: if we could not determine the numbers reliably, a definitive ranking would be baseless. Assumption II is not required: a country can lead in heart-patient counts without being most populous if disease prevalence is higher; conversely, a most populous country might not lead if prevalence is low. The statement never appeals to population ranking; it appeals to absolute case counts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate “greatest number” into a need for cross-country epidemiological comparability (I).2) Show population rank (II) is neither mentioned nor logically necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Public health comparisons regularly use measured incidence/prevalence databases (registries, surveys) to compare countries; this presupposition matches I, not II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” confuses headcount with population rank; “either” overstates; “neither” ignores the measurability premise; “None of these” would imply both, which is unwarranted. Common Pitfalls: Assuming demographic dominance is the sole driver of disease burden rankings. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions