Question 1

Statement: “The potential of knowledge as a creator of wealth is gaining currency around the world,” says an economist. Assumptions I & II: I. Only usable knowledge that is protectable may have the potential for wealth creation. II. Only usable know…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The economist notes a growing global recognition that knowledge can create wealth. The claim is descriptive about trends in valuation and economic thinking, not a normative or legal statement about intellectual property. Given Data / Assumptions: I. “Only” protectable knowledge has wealth-creating potential. II. “Only” protected knowledge has wealth-creating potential. Concept / Approach: Both I and II introduce restrictive “only” conditions and specific legal features (protectability/protection) that the original statement does not assert. The statement is compatible with wealth creation via open knowledge, tacit know-how, trade secrets, public-domain science, open-source software, or proprietary IP. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The economist’s claim: recognition of knowledge’s wealth potential is spreading.2) This does not entail that only IP-guarded knowledge creates wealth (I or II). Many wealth-creating knowledge forms are unprotected or unprotectable (e.g., process innovations diffusing through learning-by-doing).3) Therefore, neither I nor II is a necessary assumption. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose unprotected open research yields industry-wide productivity gains—this still aligns with the statement. Thus the statement remains true without I or II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: both add narrowing conditions absent from the statement. Either: still overcommits. Both: most restrictive and least supported. Common Pitfalls: Conflating “knowledge economy” with “IP economy.” While IP can enable appropriability, it is not a necessary condition for wealth creation from knowledge. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 2

Statement: The “M” Cooperative Housing Society has posted a notice at its gate: “Sales persons are not allowed inside the society.” Assumptions I & II: I. All sales persons will stay away from the society. II. The security guard posted at the gate m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Notices prohibiting entry serve as policy statements coupled with an enforcement expectation. We must determine which assumption the society relies on. Given Data / Assumptions: I. All sales persons will comply and keep away. II. A gatekeeper (security guard) can intercept violators and enforce the rule. Concept / Approach: Prohibitory notices do not presume perfect voluntary compliance; rather, they presuppose enforceability—e.g., a guard can check, question, or deny entry to sales personnel. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The purpose of the notice is to set a rule and enable enforcement against non-compliant entrants.2) It is unrealistic and unnecessary to assume universal compliance (I). The notice is often directed as much to residents/guards as to visitors.3) The practical premise is that the guard can stop or turn away sales persons (II).4) Therefore, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some sales persons attempt entry, the notice still functions given an enforcement mechanism. Without any enforcement, the notice loses effectiveness. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: overstrong and unnecessary. Either I or II: only II is needed. Neither: denies the enforcement premise. Both: includes an unnecessary universal-compliance claim. Common Pitfalls: Assuming public notices rely on everyone’s voluntary obedience; most rely on enforceability. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement: “If the city bus running between Ram Nagar and Sant Colony is extended to Vasant Vihar, it will be convenient.” — Appeal of Ram Nagar residents to the city bus company Assumptions I & II: I. The convenience of the bus company is more impo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Residents request a route extension citing convenience. Such appeals commonly rest on user need and potential service improvement, not on negative claims about the operator’s priorities or attitudes toward other localities. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The operator values its own convenience over consumer needs. II. The operator is indifferent to Sant Colony’s aspirations. Concept / Approach: An assumption must be necessary for the appeal to make sense. To ask for a route extension, one need not assume any hostility or misplaced priorities by the company; one merely believes the extension would increase convenience for users. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The appeal expresses a desired change to improve convenience; it does not evaluate the company’s values or attitudes.2) The request would remain entirely sensible even if the company highly valued consumers and cared about Sant Colony; therefore I and II are not required.3) Hence neither I nor II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If the operator were consumer-centric, residents would still appeal for extension. If the operator were attentive to Sant Colony, the appeal’s logic does not change. Thus the appeal does not depend on either assumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: add unnecessary, negative claims. Either: still unnecessary. Both: least justified. Common Pitfalls: Projecting grievances into neutral user requests; appeals can be made without presupposing ill intent. Final Answer: Neither I nor II are implicit.

Question 4

Statement: "Fly X Airways whenever you decide to go places. Our fares are less than train fares." — an advertisement. Assumptions: I. People prefer to travel by air when the fares are reasonably low. II. Other airlines charge higher fares than X Air…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal reasoning item tests whether an assumption is a necessary, tacit belief underlying an advertisement's persuasion. The ad says: "Fly X Airways… Our fares are less than train fares." The persuasive move is: because airfares are lower than train fares, you should choose this airline for your travel. We must find which hidden beliefs must be true for the pitch to work. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement compares X Airways' fares with train fares. Goal is to motivate people to fly X instead of taking the train. No information is given about other airlines' prices. Concept / Approach: In statement–assumption questions, an assumption is implicit if, without it, the argument loses its force. We check which options are required for the reasoning to be persuasive, not merely compatible. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The ad appeals to lower cost versus trains to persuade switching to air travel.2) This presupposes that many people will prefer air if it becomes cheaper or comparably priced — i.e., price sensitivity affects the mode choice.3) Assumption I captures exactly that: people prefer to travel by air when fares are reasonable.4) Assumption II talks about other airlines being costlier than X. The ad never references other airlines; the comparison is airline vs train, not airline vs airline.5) Therefore, II is not necessary to make the persuasion work. Verification / Alternative check: Even if others have identical or cheaper fares, the statement still persuades against trains based on air-versus-train pricing. Hence II is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Not referenced or needed. Either I or II: II is irrelevant; I is needed. Neither: I is required for price-based persuasion. Both: II adds nothing necessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing sufficiency with necessity: that II might help marketing does not make it an assumption of this argument. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement: "To keep myself up to date, I always listen to the 9:00 p.m. news on radio," says a candidate to an interview board. Assumptions: I. The candidate does not read newspapers. II. Only radio broadcasts the most recent news.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks whether we can distinguish what a speaker actually presupposes from what is merely possible. The candidate claims a habit: listening to the 9:00 p.m. radio news keeps them up to date. We must identify assumptions without overreading the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Speaker listens to radio news at a fixed time to stay updated. No explicit claim about newspapers or exclusivity of radio. Concept / Approach: An assumption is necessary for the statement’s point. Possibilities are not assumptions. We test each proposed assumption by asking: if it were false, would the statement lose sense? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Assumption I: "The candidate does not read newspapers."2) Even if the candidate also reads newspapers, they may still "always listen" to the 9 p.m. news to stay current. The statement remains meaningful.3) Assumption II: "Only radio broadcasts recent news."4) The claim is not about exclusivity; it is about a chosen method. TV, web, and newspapers might also provide updates. The statement still stands. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute counterfactuals: If the candidate both reads newspapers and listens to the radio, the statement remains true. If other media also carry recent news, the statement still makes sense as a personal routine. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Not necessary. Only II: Not necessary. Either / Both: Overstate what the statement requires. Common Pitfalls: Assuming exclusivity when the statement indicates preference or habit, not a logical monopoly. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: There has been a remarkable increase in air traffic in India during the past few years. Assumptions: I. Air travel has now become a status symbol. II. A large number of people are now able to afford air travel.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement notes a sustained, remarkable rise in air traffic volume. We must identify which assumption is necessary to reasonably explain the increase without adding extraneous claims about social signaling or prestige. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed fact: air traffic has grown strongly. No explicit mention of status, branding, or cultural aspiration. India-specific context; affordability and access have been changing. Concept / Approach: For an assumption to be implicit, it should be a required underpinning of the inference from fact to explanation or recommendation. We ask: what must be true for increased traffic to be plausible nationwide? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If more people can afford air travel (II), rising traffic is naturally explained: price reductions, income growth, competition, and connectivity expand demand.2) The "status symbol" claim (I) may sometimes influence choices but is not necessary. Traffic could rise due to lowered fares, more routes, or business expansion without any prestige-driven motive.3) The observation itself neither mentions nor relies on social-status dynamics. Verification / Alternative check: Even if air travel is not a status symbol, affordability and availability alone can still cause large increases in passengers. Therefore I is not required, while II provides a necessary, general explanation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Prestige is not required to explain growth. Either / Both: I is not necessary. Neither: II is plausibly necessary to undergird nationwide growth. Common Pitfalls: Confusing possible causes with necessary assumptions. A trend can be explained by affordability without invoking status. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 7

Statement: The head of the organization congratulated the entire staff for their sincere efforts to reduce the deficit and urged them to give their best for an even more profitable future. Assumptions: I. Employees may feel motivated and at least ma…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This managerial communication aims to reinforce positive behavior (deficit reduction) and set a forward-looking target (profitability). We must determine which assumption is necessary for the message to achieve its persuasive purpose. Given Data / Assumptions: Leader praises staff for measurable improvement. Leader urges continued or increased effort for better results. Organizational goal: move from reduced deficit to higher profit. Concept / Approach: Motivational appeals assume that praise and vision-setting can influence effort. An opposite assumption that people will relax would undercut the very intent of the speech and is therefore not implicit. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The speech's purpose is to motivate; thus it presupposes staff responsiveness to recognition and exhortation (I).2) Assumption II conflicts with the intent. A communicator would not rely on staff relaxing post-praise; that would defeat the message's goal. Verification / Alternative check: If employees did not respond to praise and urging, the speech would be pointless. Hence I is necessary; II is contrary to purpose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Contradicts the persuasive aim. Either/Neither/Both: Do not reflect the motivational logic embedded in the communication. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking a possible reaction (complacency) for an assumed one. The assumption must support, not negate, the intended effect. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 8

Statement: "Product X is not currently in stock with us but can be supplied against a firm order." Assumptions: I. Product X is not in great demand. II. Product X is out of stock because a new model is arriving.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The seller says the item is not available off the shelf but can be arranged with a confirmed order. We must identify which unstated belief must hold for this stance to make sense operationally and commercially. Given Data / Assumptions: No ready stock of Product X is maintained. Supply is feasible when demand is guaranteed (firm order). No explicit mention of an upcoming model change. Concept / Approach: Retailers/procurement units avoid carrying inventory with low or uncertain turnover. Agreeing to procure only against firm orders suggests demand is insufficient to justify stocking costs. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The policy "available against firm order" implies a risk of idle inventory or low movement.2) This aligns with Assumption I: demand not strong enough to keep pipeline stock.3) Assumption II speculates about a new model causing stockout. The statement provides no hint of model transition; the arrangement policy applies generally. Verification / Alternative check: If demand were robust, maintaining ready stock would likely be profitable and standard. The seller's approach indicates otherwise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Adds an unsupported cause (new model). Either/Neither/Both: Only I is necessary; II is neither necessary nor indicated. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a general stocking policy with a situational stockout due to product refresh. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 9

Statement: "Two months ago, the Central Government announced dearness relief for pensioners with immediate effect, yet banks have not credited the arrears," says a Pensioners' Forum. Assumptions: I. Most banks normally take care of pensioners. II. T…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The forum highlights a gap between policy announcement ("with immediate effect") and execution (arrears not credited after two months). The complaint presumes a reasonable implementation window has passed. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy for dearness relief was announced two months prior. Arrears remain uncredited to pensioners. No statement about banks' general benevolence. Concept / Approach: A grievance assumes a standard of reasonableness is violated. Here, the timeline is central: "immediate effect" plus two months elapsed implies implementation should already have happened. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The censure presupposes that two months suffice for notifications, system updates, and crediting.2) Assumption I about banks "normally taking care" is irrelevant to this procedural delay claim.3) Therefore, only II is required to make the complaint meaningful. Verification / Alternative check: If two months were insufficient, the criticism would be premature. The forum's stance relies on the contrary belief. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Does not bear on timeline feasibility. Either/Both: Overstate the requirements. Neither: Undermines the logic of delay-based criticism. Common Pitfalls: Attributing intent or benevolence to institutions when the claim is about process time and execution capacity. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement: The school has decided to raise the number of students per classroom to seventy from the next academic session to bridge its income–expenditure gap. Assumptions: I. Fees from the additional students will be sufficient to bridge the gap to…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The management's policy change attempts to alleviate a budget gap by increasing class size. We must detect which presuppositions the plan relies upon. Given Data / Assumptions: Decision: increase intake per section to 70. Stated purpose: bridge the financial gap. No assurance of demand or guaranteed enrollments. Concept / Approach: A plan to raise capacity for revenue implicitly assumes that added capacity monetizes sufficiently. Certainty about filling every seat, however, is stronger than required and typically not assumed in a policy announcement. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) For the decision to be sensible, added seats must materially improve revenue (Assumption I).2) Assumption II claims certainty of full utilization in each class, which is not necessary; partial but substantial filling can still bridge much of the gap.3) Hence only I is required. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some classes don't reach seventy, higher average occupancy could still improve finances. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Too strong and not required. Either/Both: Overstate necessities. Neither: Rejects the revenue logic needed to justify the decision. Common Pitfalls: Treating managerial optimism as certainty; necessity is about what must hold, not what is hoped for. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 11

Statement: Science is like a news agency: it supplies information, but with exceptionally high reliability due to rigorous verification and its ability to endure for centuries. Therefore, science should be read with as much interest as the news. Ass…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The argument analogizes science to a news agency but emphasizes superior reliability from verification and longevity of claims. It concludes that science should be read with as much interest as news. We must locate the tacit beliefs enabling this comparison and prescription. Given Data / Assumptions: Science uses elaborate techniques of verification; its findings often survive centuries. Readers typically consume news with interest. Concept / Approach: To motivate "read science with as much interest as news," it helps (a) that science fosters investigation (making it worth reading) and (b) that news is indeed read because it is interesting (the benchmark of comparison). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The premise about verification suggests an underlying value: inquiry and scrutiny matter; thus science cultivates an investigative mindset (I).2) The conclusion equates the interest level of science with that of news, implying news is already read with interest (II).3) Both I and II are needed to bridge from analogy to the normative recommendation. Verification / Alternative check: If news weren't read out of interest, the comparative exhortation would fail. If science didn't promote investigation, the basis for equal or greater interest would weaken. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II: Each alone is insufficient to support the full recommendation. Either: Both are jointly helpful and implicitly relied upon. Neither: Contradicts the passage's logic. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking that analogical conclusions often import assumptions from both sides of the comparison. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 12

Statement: Prakash decided in May to book railway reservations for his July journey to Mumbai. Assumptions: I. The railways open reservations two months in advance. II. There is more than one train to Mumbai. III. A seat in the desired class will be…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The action—booking in May for a July trip—indicates planning aligned with reservation windows. We must test which assumptions are necessary for the decision to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Month of reservation: May. Month of travel: July. Destination: Mumbai. Concept / Approach: The key is the institutional rule about how far in advance reservations open. Other details (number of trains, certainty of availability) are not strictly required for the act of deciding to reserve now. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If reservations open two months in advance (I), May is an appropriate time to book for July.2) Multiple trains (II) are not necessary; even a single train suffices for making a reservation decision.3) Certainty of availability (III) is not required to decide to try reserving; one may attempt booking despite uncertain availability. Verification / Alternative check: Even with one train and uncertain availability, deciding to book once the window opens is rational and common. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Both II and III: Adds unnecessary specifics. Both I and II: II is not required. Only III: Certainty is stronger than needed. Only II: Irrelevant to the timing logic. Common Pitfalls: Equating a prudent decision with guaranteed availability; assumptions must be minimal necessities. Final Answer: Only I is implicit.

Question 13

Statement: In India, firms with relatively high import orientation were not the ones that benefited most from Government interventions during the peak of the import-substitution era. Assumptions: I. Highly import-oriented companies do not need Gover…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts benefit distribution under import-substitution policies: the firms that were most import-oriented were not the primary beneficiaries of Government interventions. We must identify the minimal assumption that makes this comparative claim meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy context: "heydays of import substitution" implies Government interventions (tariffs, quotas, licensing) favor domestic sourcing over imports. Observation: high-import firms were not the major beneficiaries. Concept / Approach: If high-import firms were not the largest beneficiaries, it follows that firms with comparatively lower import orientation benefited more. This is a necessary comparative complement; otherwise the statement lacks a meaningful contrast group. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The statement is about relative benefit: group A (high import) did not benefit the most.2) For this to be informative, some other identifiable group must have benefited more; the natural contrasting group is lower import orientation (Assumption II).3) Assumption I ("do not need support") is not necessary; need and receipt are different.4) Assumption III about price effects is not directly entailed; interventions during import substitution were often non-price trade barriers.5) Assumption IV about exports is off-topic. Verification / Alternative check: The logic of "not the ones that benefited most" minimally requires that others (plausibly low-import firms) benefited more; otherwise the partition is unintelligible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Conflates need with benefit. Only III: Not implicated by the claim. None: Denies the necessary comparative complement. II and IV: IV is irrelevant. Common Pitfalls: Assuming content about pricing or exports that is absent; the statement is purely about relative benefit across import-orientation categories. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 14

Statement: "Rich people are more prone to have heart attacks." (repaired from likely typo "Rice people"). Assumptions: I. Most deaths among rich people are due to heart attacks. II. Poor people do not have heart attacks.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement claims comparative proneness: rich people are more likely to suffer heart attacks than others. We must test which hidden beliefs are necessary for this claim to make sense, not merely beliefs that could be true alongside it. Given Data / Assumptions: A comparative claim about incidence among rich people. No claim about proportions of total deaths by cause. No claim eliminating heart attacks among poor people. Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit only if the statement’s sense or persuasive force collapses without it. We check I and II by negating them and seeing whether the original statement still stands. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If I is false (most rich deaths are not from heart attacks), the statement about higher proneness can still be true; “more prone” is frequency-relative, not cause-of-death majority.2) If II is false (poor people do have heart attacks), the comparative “more prone” can still hold: both groups may experience heart attacks, but rates differ.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is required. Verification / Alternative check: Comparatives do not entail exclusivity or dominance among causes; they only assert a higher likelihood relative to another group. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Both: Each adds content beyond the comparative claim. Either I or II: Neither is necessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “more prone” with “only group affected” or “top cause of death.” Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement: "Do not lean out of the moving train," a warning displayed in a railway compartment. Assumptions: I. Such a warning will have some effect on passenger behavior. II. Leaning out of a moving train is dangerous. III. It is the railways’ duty…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public safety warnings are issued to reduce risk. The instruction “Do not lean out of the moving train” aims to prevent harm. Which beliefs must be true for such a warning to be meaningful? Given Data / Assumptions: A formal warning by the railway authority. No explicit claim that warnings always change behavior. Implied safety mandate of the railways. Concept / Approach: A safety warning presupposes (a) the act is dangerous and (b) the issuer is responsible for passenger safety. Belief about guaranteed effectiveness is not necessary; authorities may warn even if some ignore it. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without II (danger), the warning would lack rationale; hence II is necessary.2) Without III (duty of care), the railway’s role in issuing such warnings would be ungrounded; warnings arise from safety obligations.3) I (effectiveness) is helpful but not required; warnings can be justified even if compliance is uncertain. Verification / Alternative check: Regulators issue warnings despite imperfect compliance; their duty and the hazard justify doing so. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I and II: Omits the safety-duty basis for issuing warnings. Only II: Ignores institutional responsibility. All three: Overstates necessity by including guaranteed effect. Common Pitfalls: Equating “worth issuing” with “certain to work.” Final Answer: II and III are implicit.

Question 16

Statement: "Training must be given to all employees to increase productivity and profitability." Assumptions: I. Training is an essential component of productivity. II. Employees cannot function effectively without proper training. III. Profitabilit…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The managerial prescription makes two links: training → productivity and productivity → profitability. We must identify which assumptions underlie this imperative without overstating them. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: training for all employees. Objective: increase productivity and profitability. Scope: organization-wide, not just remedial. Concept / Approach: Necessity, not possibility. The statement requires that training contributes to productivity (I) and that productivity supports profitability (III). It does not require the absolute claim that employees “cannot function effectively” without training (II), which is too strong and unnecessary for the policy to make sense. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If I were false, the mandate would be pointless; thus I is necessary.2) II claims impossibility of effective functioning without training. The policy can still be rational if training elevates already functioning employees; total inability is not needed.3) III connects productivity to profitability; the goal statement presupposes this complementarity. Verification / Alternative check: Organizations often train to move from effective to more effective; II is not required for the policy’s logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: None / Only I / Only III: Incomplete. All: Overstates by including II. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “beneficial” with “absolutely necessary for any functioning.” Final Answer: I and III are implicit.

Question 17

Statement: "The situation in this area continues to be tense and out of control. People are requested to remain at home only." Assumptions: I. There have been serious incidents. II. People will not go to the office. III. Normality will be restored s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A public advisory asks residents to stay home due to a tense, uncontrolled situation. We must find the minimal assumptions behind issuing such guidance. Given Data / Assumptions: The authority perceives ongoing tension and risk. No claim is made about offices specifically. No timeline prediction is stated. Concept / Approach: An advisory presupposes a real safety threat (I). It need not assume particular behavioral outcomes (II) nor forecast when normalcy returns (III). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without serious incidents or credible threat, a “stay home” advisory would lack justification; I is necessary.2) II, that people will not go to the office, is an outcome, not a precondition; advisories can be issued even if some ignore them.3) III is a prediction unnecessary to the current advisory; the statement does not hinge on quick restoration. Verification / Alternative check: Authorities can advise caution without committing to behavior compliance or timelines. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They add behavior certainty or future forecasts absent from the advisory’s logic. Common Pitfalls: Reading unstated optimism or compliance into emergency messages. Final Answer: Only I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: "If you are a first-class graduate with at least 65% marks, you are eligible to apply for the officer post in our organization," says an advertisement. Assumptions: I. There will be an adequate number of applicants satisfying the educatio…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An eligibility advertisement sets a threshold (first class, ≥ 65%). We must determine which background beliefs justify announcing this criterion to attract applicants and predict performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Threshold is designed to filter applicants. Objective: recruit candidates likely to perform well. Outreach only makes sense if enough qualified people exist. Concept / Approach: Two assumptions support the ad: (I) a sufficient pool exists, and (III) the threshold correlates with job success. Assumption II is stronger than needed (sweeping negative about < 65%) and not required to justify the criterion. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, the ad would be futile; adequate supply is presupposed.2) Without III, the cutoff would be arbitrary; the organization presumes predictive validity of the score.3) II is not necessary; even if some candidates below 65% can perform well, the threshold can still be a pragmatic filter. Verification / Alternative check: Recruitment criteria often trade sensitivity for practicality; they do not imply categorical incompetence below the line. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either exclude a necessary assumption (I or III) or include the unnecessary sweeping claim (II). Common Pitfalls: Treating a cutoff as a universal statement about ability. Final Answer: I and III are implicit.

Question 19

Statement: The largest domestic airline announced a new summer schedule, introducing more flights on trunk routes. Assumptions: I. More passengers are expected to travel by this airline on trunk routes during summer. II. Other airlines will also inc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Capacity expansion on trunk routes for summer signals demand expectations. We must separate what this airline presupposes from industry-wide projections. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: add flights (supply increase) on trunk routes in summer. Purpose: meet anticipated demand and improve connectivity. Concept / Approach: The decision rests on Assumption I: expected higher passenger traffic for this airline on those routes in summer. Assumption II is speculative about competitors and not required for this firm’s scheduling choice. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, adding flights would be unjustified.2) II concerns rival responses and is irrelevant to the internal rationale. Verification / Alternative check: Timetables are set on own-demand forecasts; competitor actions are considered but not assumed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either ignore the clear demand premise or import unnecessary market-wide predictions. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: The chairman decided to hold a grand function to celebrate the company’s silver jubilee next weekend and invited a large number of guests. Assumptions: I. Company officials will be able to complete all necessary preparations in time. II. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Deciding on a “grand” celebration and inviting many guests presupposes feasibility (arrangements) and purpose (attendance). We identify the necessary background beliefs enabling such a decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Event date: next weekend (short lead time). Scale: grand, with many invitees. Concept / Approach: For the decision to be sensible, (I) operational readiness must be achievable, and (II) inviting many people must plausibly result in significant attendance; otherwise, the “grand” plan would be hollow. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, the chairman’s plan would likely fail logistically.2) Without II, sending many invitations would not serve the function’s celebratory goal.3) Thus, both I and II underlie the decision. Verification / Alternative check: Large corporate events typically assume workable operations and meaningful turnout. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each omits a critical enabler (operations or attendance) or denies both. Common Pitfalls: Assuming certainty is required; only reasonable expectation is needed (which is what assumptions represent). Final Answer: Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions