Question 1

Statement: People of Indian origin (PIO) maintain their cultural traditions and values even though they have settled comfortably in their adopted countries. Assumptions: I. Indian culture is flexible enough to be adjusted with any other culture. II.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement observes that PIOs preserve their culture abroad. We must detect whether it assumes cultural flexibility or superiority. Remember: an assumption must be essential to the statement’s sense, not a plausible explanation. Given Data / Assumptions: PIOs maintain cultural traditions while settled overseas. No claim is made about compatibility or ranking of cultures. Concept / Approach: Maintaining one’s culture overseas can result from community networks, identity salience, institutions (temples, associations), or personal choice. The statement does not require that Indian culture be inherently flexible or superior. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I (Flexibility): Not necessary. One can maintain culture even in a non-flexible, distinct form through enclaves and ritual continuity.Assumption II (Superiority): Not necessary. Preservation does not imply a value ranking over other cultures; it simply notes persistence. Verification / Alternative check: Even if Indian culture were neither unusually flexible nor “superior,” the statement could be true due to diaspora dynamics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I or II imports causal/value claims not required by the observation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing reasons people may give (pride, adaptability) with assumptions the sentence needs. Final Answer: if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 2

Statement: DTC authorities have planned to print advertisements for various products on bus tickets to put the tickets to good use. Assumptions: I. Passengers will read (or at least notice) the advertisements printed on the tickets. II. DTC will be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The plan is to monetize/“put to good use” bus tickets by printing ads. For the plan to be rational, at least two premises must hold: visibility to riders and the existence of advertisers willing to pay. Given Data / Assumptions: Tickets will carry advertisements. Goal: practical use and implied revenue. Concept / Approach: Advertising has two sides: audience attention and paying clients. Without readership, ads are ineffective; without clients, there are no ads to print. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Necessary. If riders do not see the ads, the idea fails the “use” test.Assumption II: Necessary. The plan presumes that advertisers will participate; otherwise the initiative cannot proceed. Verification / Alternative check: Remove either premise and the plan loses its commercial logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single-assumption choices omit an essential side of the market; “neither” contradicts the rationale; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the two-sided nature of advertising platforms. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 3

Statement: Parents of students are demonstrating at the Legislative Council to protest against fee-hike revisions announced by the capital’s educational institutions. Assumptions: I. The parents are unable (or find it unreasonable) to afford the inc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Why protest at the Legislative Council? Because protesters believe (a) the fee hike harms them materially and (b) the Council can influence or reverse the decision. These are classic implicit premises behind targeted demonstrations. Given Data / Assumptions: Parents assembled at a political/legislative venue. Issue: recent fee hike by educational institutions. Concept / Approach: Demonstrations typically presume both grievance and a forum with remedial power. If either is absent, the action loses point or venue logic. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Necessary. Without economic hardship or perceived unfairness, mass protest lacks motivation.Assumption II: Necessary. Protesting specifically at the Legislative Council implies belief in its capacity to influence/command institutions. Verification / Alternative check: If the Council had no authority or the fees were easily affordable, the protest's location/scale would be irrational. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-assumption choice omits a key driver; “neither” negates the rationale for venue and action; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Assuming protests are purely symbolic—here the venue signals a remedy expectation. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 4

Statement: "All the State Governments and Union Territories should make video-filming of post-mortem examinations compulsory in cases of custodial deaths." — National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Assumptions: I. Doctors sometimes provide false or …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests recognition of implicit assumptions behind a policy recommendation. The NHRC recommends compulsory video-filming of post-mortems for custodial deaths. We must identify what must be true for this recommendation to be meaningful, not merely desirable. Given Data / Assumptions: Context: custodial deaths, where potential conflict of interest or pressure on medical/legal processes may exist. Proposal: compulsory video-filming of post-mortems to increase transparency and accountability. Goal: bolster evidentiary integrity and deter malpractice. Concept / Approach: In verbal reasoning, an implicit assumption is a necessary premise without which the statement loses its force. Here, the utility of video-filming hinges on the existence or risk of inaccurate, biased, or manipulated post-mortem reports. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If doctors never falsified or were never influenced, compulsory filming would add little value. The recommendation presumes a problem of accuracy/credibility that filming can mitigate. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: While lack of justice for families may be a consequence of falsified reports, the NHRC’s recommendation does not require that justice has not been served in general. The policy could be adopted proactively to prevent possible miscarriages. Thus II is not strictly necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If there were no risk of false/compromised autopsies (I false), filming would be redundant. If some families already secure justice (II false), filming could still be warranted; the recommendation stands. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II as necessary overreach. “Both” and “either” wrongly elevate II; “neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the crux. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a plausible motivation (justice for families) with a logically necessary assumption. Final Answer: if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement: Income controlled by women contributes much more to household food security and child nutrition than income controlled by men. Assumptions: I. Women pay more attention to household nutrition. II. Men are more interested in outside affairs…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement claims a comparative impact: money in women’s control benefits food security and child nutrition more than money controlled by men. We must uncover what essential premise underlies this comparative claim. Given Data / Assumptions: Control over income affects expenditure patterns. Outcome metrics: household food security and child nutrition. Concept / Approach: For the comparative effect to hold, it must be that women, on average, allocate income more towards nutrition-focused spending than men do. That does not require any particular statement about men’s “outside affairs.” Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If women do not attend more to household nutrition, women-controlled income would not systematically outperform men-controlled income on these outcomes. Thus I is necessary.Assumption II: This adds a reason (men focus outside) that is neither stated nor required. Even if men focused equally on household matters but had different spending patterns for other reasons, the statement could still be true. Hence II is not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a world where men care deeply about households but still allocate less to nutrition than women due to preferences, social roles, or constraints. The original statement remains intact without II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” include an unnecessary premise. “Neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the mechanism. Common Pitfalls: Reading stereotyping explanations (like II) into the logic; the test is logical necessity, not sociological speculation. Final Answer: if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: "The state's executive machinery should take all necessary measures to stop hazardous and poisonous effluents from being discharged into the Yamuna." — Court order Assumptions: I. The water of the Yamuna is contaminated (or under threat o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A court instructs the executive to take “all necessary measures” to stop hazardous effluents entering a river. What must be true for such a directive to make sense? Given Data / Assumptions: Action demanded: stronger preventive measures. Target: hazardous/poisonous effluent discharge into the Yamuna. Concept / Approach: Orders to act usually presuppose (a) the existence of a problem (or serious risk), and (b) a gap in current effort sufficient to justify judicial intervention. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If contamination (or imminent threat) did not exist, ordering action would be ungrounded. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: If the state machinery had already taken adequate measures, further direction would be redundant. The court’s order implies insufficiency to date. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If either assumption were false (no contamination or adequate measures already in place), the directive would lack purpose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single-assumption options omit one pillar of the order’s logic; “neither” contradicts the premise of intervention; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Missing that judicial directions typically imply both a problem and inadequate status quo response. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 7

Statement: If betting and match-fixing play a vital role in cricket—making the game ungentlemanly and ugly—then there is no point wasting precious time watching a game that cheats the innocent. Assumptions: I. This “contagion” may spread to other ga…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement recommends not watching cricket if betting and match-fixing are central to it. We must find the indispensable premise behind this recommendation. Given Data / Assumptions: Conditional frame: if betting/match-fixing are vital, the sport “cheats the innocent.” Prescription: do not waste time watching it. Concept / Approach: A necessary assumption is one without which the recommendation collapses. The advice presumes that the corrupt practices actually occur (or are significantly plausible) in cricket and that they exploit viewers. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Whether or not the problem spreads to other sports is irrelevant to the advice about watching cricket. The recommendation stands even if the issue is confined to cricket. Thus I is not necessary.Assumption II: The argument assumes the occurrence (or high likelihood) of betting/match-fixing that wrongs viewers. If this were not the case, the advice to abstain would lack justification. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false, watching would not be “wasting time on cheating entertainment,” undermining the recommendation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I as necessary adds an extraneous contagion claim. “Neither” denies the core premise; “either/both” overstate requirements. Common Pitfalls: Letting colorful language about “contagion” distract from the action-guiding premise. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 8

Statement: Metropolises may provide education, jobs, and a good lifestyle, but they score miserably on life’s basic necessities. Assumptions: I. The speaker specifically refers to irregular water and electricity supply. II. A large number of people …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The claim contrasts advanced amenities (education, jobs, lifestyle) with poor performance on “basic necessities.” We must determine which hidden premise is essential for the claim to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Metros: high-order services often strong. Alleged shortfall: basics for everyday living. Concept / Approach: To say metros “score miserably” on basics presupposes that a significant portion of their populations lack those basics. It does not require naming exactly which basics (water, electricity, sanitation, housing, etc.). Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Stipulating water/electricity is overly specific. The statement could refer to affordable housing, sanitation, public transport capacity, or healthcare access. Hence I is not necessary.Assumption II: The assertion of metro failure hinges on widespread deprivation of basics; otherwise the statement would be exaggerated or false. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If only a negligible number lacked basics, “score miserably” would be unwarranted; thus II must hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” wrongly require a specific interpretation (I). “Neither” contradicts the claim’s force; “only I” is too narrow. Common Pitfalls: Conflating examples (water/electricity) with the general category of “basic necessities.” Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 9

Statement: "If you lose after competing hard, that's fine. If you lose without trying hard, that disappoints me." Assumptions: I. Losing after trying hard is excusable. II. Losing without effort is regrettable. Choose the option that best identifies…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker draws a value distinction between losing with effort versus losing without effort. We must identify the assumptions that must be true for this stance to hold. Given Data / Assumptions: Outcome: loss in both cases. Criterion: presence or absence of sincere effort. Concept / Approach: Two judgments are embedded: one that excuses losses with effort, and another that condemns losses without effort. Both judgments are necessary to support the stated contrast. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: The speaker explicitly signals acceptance of losses post-effort. If losing after trying were not excusable, the first clause would be inconsistent. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: The disappointment in the second clause rests on the premise that a loss without effort is blameworthy. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I and the first clause collapses; remove II and the second clause loses its moral force. The contrast disappears without both assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-assumption choice omits one half of the evaluative contrast; “neither” contradicts both clauses; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Missing that both halves of the statement each carry their own necessary premise. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 10

Statement: Poverty persists under conditions where human resources are undervalued while land and other material resources are overvalued. Assumptions: I. Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources. II. There should be a bal…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement offers a diagnostic claim: poverty endures when human resources (skills, education, health, entrepreneurship) are undervalued relative to material resources (land, capital, natural assets). Your task is to spot what the author must be assuming for this diagnosis to make sense, not to add attractive but unnecessary policy claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Poverty is linked to mispricing/misvaluation across resource classes. Human resources are systematically undervalued; material resources are overvalued. The relative valuation gap sustains poverty. Concept / Approach: Identifying implicit assumptions means finding propositions that must be true for the argument to retain meaning. A diagnostic about “persistence” typically presumes that correcting the imbalance is relevant to improvement; it does not necessarily guarantee total eradication of poverty. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess Assumption I: “Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources.” This goes beyond the statement. The author claims a condition that sustains poverty, not that a single lever will eradicate it entirely. Poverty may diminish or improve by rebalancing values without being fully eradicated. Hence I is not necessary.Assess Assumption II: “There should be a balance between human and material resource valuation.” Since the statement blames relative under/over-valuation for persistence, it implicitly treats balance (or at least a less distorted valuation) as desirable for remedy. If balance were irrelevant, the diagnostic loses force. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the author believing that valuation balance does not matter; then citing misvaluation as a cause of persistence would be incoherent. By contrast, the author need not believe in total eradication via HR enhancement alone for the claim to stand. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” wrongly make eradication (I) necessary. “Neither” contradicts the reliance on valuation balance (II). “Only I” is too strong and unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Equating “a key driver” with “a complete cure”; and confusing relative-balance claims with absolute guarantees. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 11

Statement: “In India, short of nearly every essential commodity, there is one product we stock in excess: ministers.” Assumptions: I. Increasing the number of ministers makes stocking essential commodities easier. II. The strength of the ministry (n…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a sardonic observation contrasting scarcity of essentials with an overabundance of ministers. It lampoons governmental bloat and implies a corrective stance regarding cabinet size. Given Data / Assumptions: Essentials are scarce; ministers are plentiful. The comparison is rhetorical, highlighting misallocation/excess. Concept / Approach: We seek what must be assumed for the critique to hold. The jab presumes that having many ministers is undesirable and should be trimmed; it does not depend on any causal claim that more ministers help stock commodities. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “More ministers make stocking essentials easier.” The quip suggests the opposite—too many ministers despite shortages—without implying that increasing ministers helps with supply. This is not necessary.Assumption II: “Ministry size should be reduced.” The entire thrust is that the country has an excess of ministers while lacking essentials; this assumes reduction is preferable or warranted. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false (no problem with many ministers), the contrast loses bite. If I were true/false, the sarcasm stands regardless—there is no dependence on I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” wrongly involve I; “neither” denies the implied prescriptive stance; “only I” conflicts with the satire’s logic. Common Pitfalls: Treating a rhetorical comparison as a functional/causal claim about supply chains. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 12

Statement: “Courts are no longer cathedrals; they are casinos where the throw of the dice matters.” Assumptions: I. Nowadays, courts do not provide justice to deserving people. II. The courts are not fulfilling the objective for which they were esta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker contrasts “cathedrals” (symbolizing sanctity and principles) with “casinos” (chance and unpredictability). The metaphor asserts systemic unreliability in judicial outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: Courts should deliver consistent, principled justice. Current functioning allegedly resembles randomness/chance. Concept / Approach: We must identify the minimal premise without which the metaphor would not bite. The core claim is institutional failure to meet its founding objective. It is not necessary to add a specific claimant category (“deserving people”). Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “Courts do not provide justice to deserving people.” While plausible, the statement’s thrust is broader—unreliability in general. Even if some deserving litigants win, the casino metaphor could still hold. Hence I is not necessary.Assumption II: “Courts are not fulfilling their objective.” This is essential; if courts were fulfilling their mission, calling them casinos would be inappropriate. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Consider a situation where outcomes are unpredictable yet occasionally right; the criticism still centers on failure of the institutional purpose (predictable, principled adjudication), aligning with II without requiring I to be universally true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” overstate requirements; “neither” contradicts the critique; “only I” narrows the claim improperly. Common Pitfalls: Confusing an illustrative subgroup (“deserving people”) with the institution-wide objective. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 13

Statement: Though the Indian cricket team has returned from a disastrous tour, they should not be written off. Assumptions: I. In the past, the team had excellent tours. II. In the future, the team may perform excellently again (the potential remain…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement advises against a hasty, definitive negative judgment (“writing off”) after a single disastrous tour. It trades on the idea of future potential rather than resting on a historical record. Given Data / Assumptions: Recent performance was poor (“disastrous tour”). Recommendation: do not conclude that the team is finished. Concept / Approach: To argue against writing off, one must assume that future outcomes could be better than the latest result. Past excellence may bolster confidence but is not logically required. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “Past tours were excellent.” This is not necessary. One can resist writing off a team on the grounds of potential, development, or variance even without a shining past.Assumption II: “Future excellent performance is possible.” This is required; if future excellence were impossible, writing the team off would be rational. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even for a historically mediocre team, it is coherent to claim “don’t write them off” if improvement is possible (new players, strategy shifts, recovery from injuries). Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” wrongly pull in past-excellence; “neither” denies the prospect that underpins the advice; “only I” is irrelevant to the core logic. Common Pitfalls: Overemphasizing historical records in a forward-looking claim about potential. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 14

Statement: There are lessons to be learned even in defeats. Assumptions: I. Some people do not take their defeats seriously. II. People who learn from their defeats may become successful in the future. Choose the option that best identifies which as…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts a general principle: defeats can be instructive. In critical reasoning, we identify which hidden premise(s) must hold true for this claim to make sense as advice or observation about improvement. Given Data / Assumptions: Defeats occur and can contain information or feedback. Learning from negative outcomes can influence future results. Concept / Approach: To be “implicit,” an assumption must be necessary for the statement’s logic. The claim focuses on the possibility and value of extracting lessons from failure, not on how people currently treat defeat. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: “Some people do not take their defeats seriously.” The main statement does not require any claim about people’s present attitudes. Even if everyone already takes defeats seriously—or if no one does—the truth that defeats can teach lessons remains. Hence I is not required.Assess II: “People who learn from their defeats may become successful in the future.” The prescriptive force of the statement (that defeats are worth learning from) assumes that such learning can improve future performance or outcomes. If learning could not help, defeats would not be valuable as lessons. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If lessons from defeats never improved future results, the claim would be empty. Conversely, the statement remains coherent regardless of whether “some people” take defeats seriously, so I is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” unnecessarily include I. “Neither” denies II, undermining the statement’s point. “Only I” misses the core improvement premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing descriptive claims about current behavior (I) with the normative/causal claim about learning leading to improvement (II). Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement: The Union Government needs to give greater attention to, and provide larger resources for, primary education and primary health. Assumptions: I. Primary education and primary health are presently inadequate and need strengthening in our c…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement recommends higher governmental attention and resources for two foundational sectors: primary education and primary health. We must uncover what the speaker takes for granted for this recommendation to be reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: There is a perceived gap between current provision and desired provision in primary education/health. Improving these sectors materially improves societal welfare. Concept / Approach: Policy recommendations usually rest on two pillars: (1) importance (the sector matters for outcomes), and (2) insufficiency (current inputs/attention are not enough). Without (1), prioritization is unmotivated; without (2), extra resources are unnecessary. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: The call for “greater attention” and “larger resources” implies that current attention/resources are inadequate relative to needs or goals. Even if conditions are not “deteriorating,” they are at least suboptimal; otherwise, no increase would be urged. Hence I is necessary.Assess II: The argument also presupposes that primary education/health significantly affect living standards; if they did not, diverting scarce public resources would be illogical. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If I were false (current provision already optimal), additional resources would be wasteful. If II were false (no impact on living standards), prioritization would lack rationale. Therefore both are needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option excluding either I or II neglects one of the two necessary pillars (need and importance). “Neither” contradicts the core logic of the recommendation. Common Pitfalls: Reading “inadequate” strictly as “deteriorating.” The assumption required is insufficiency relative to goals, not necessarily a downward trend. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 16

Statement: People are bound to reject changes in the basic structure of the Constitution and any interference in traditional communal harmony. Assumptions: I. This statement is being made by a leader of the opposition party. II. The government in po…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement predicts public rejection if core constitutional features are altered or communal harmony is disturbed. We must determine which background belief must hold for the warning to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: “Basic structure” refers to bedrock constitutional principles. “Traditional communal harmony” refers to inter-community peace. Concept / Approach: A cautionary assertion typically presumes a relevant impetus or threat; otherwise, it is idle. It does not require knowledge of who is speaking, only that there is some contemplated or ongoing action that could trigger public rejection. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: The partisan identity of the speaker (opposition leader) is not necessary. The statement could be made by any civic figure, jurist, or even a member of the ruling party. Hence I is not required.Assess II: The warning presumes that the government (or an actor with power) is moving toward amendments or actions affecting basic structure/harmony. Without such a move, the assertion loses immediacy and point. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If no moves were being made, there would be no reason to declare people “are bound to reject” them; the statement would be gratuitous. The identity of the speaker does not change the logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” wrongly include I; “neither” contradicts the need for a triggering context; “only I” misses the action context entirely. Common Pitfalls: Assuming political context is always required; here, only the policy/action context is necessary. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement: Over the years, successive railway ministers have used the Railways’ employment potential to boost their political careers. Assumptions: I. Over the years, the Railways has offered substantial employment opportunities (vacancies/positions…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement alleges that multiple railway ministers have leveraged the Railways’ capacity to generate jobs to advance their political careers. Identifying the necessary assumptions reveals the mechanics that make this claim coherent. Given Data / Assumptions: Railways is a large public-sector employer with recurring hiring needs. Voters often reward politicians who provide jobs/benefits. Concept / Approach: For the claim to stand, two conditions must simultaneously hold: that Railways offers employment opportunities sufficient to be politically salient (I), and that distributing or facilitating such employment indeed translates into political capital (II). Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: If Railways had negligible or no employment opportunities, ministers could not have “utilised” its employment potential. Hence I is necessary.Assess II: If jobs did not meaningfully improve a minister’s political fortunes, leveraging employment potential would not “boost” careers. Therefore II is also necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I: no employment potential—claim collapses. Remove II: even with jobs, no political advantage—claim collapses. Both are needed for the causal pathway “employment potential → political gain.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option omitting one of the assumptions breaks the causal chain. “Neither” contradicts the entire allegation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “some jobs exist” with “politically salient employment.” The assumption is that the scale/visibility of jobs is sufficient to matter electorally. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 18

Statement–Assumption (Rail Safety Outlays and Future Mishaps): Statement: “Safety will be the primary concern. I hope that these enhanced outlays will go a long way in ensuring a safe and sound journey for the millions of passengers.” — Railway Mini…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item belongs to the Statement–Assumption type in verbal reasoning. We are given a ministerial statement that emphasises safety as a primary concern and links enhanced outlays (i.e., higher spending on safety) with the goal of safer journeys for passengers. Our job is to identify which unstated beliefs (assumptions) must be true for the statement to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Emphasis on safety as “primary concern”. Enhanced outlays are expected to improve passenger safety. Millions of passengers are impacted by rail safety policies. Concept / Approach: In assumption questions, an assumption is implicit only if the statement depends on it. If the statement would still make sense when the assumption is denied, that assumption is not implicit. We therefore test each given assumption with a necessity lens rather than a mere plausibility lens. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess Assumption I: “Railways has failed to ensure adequate safety measures.” The statement does not assert failure; it frames a future priority with added spending. Even if safety had been adequate earlier, the speaker could still prioritise safety and allocate more funds to improve or maintain standards. Therefore, the statement does not collapse when I is denied. I is not implicit.Assess Assumption II: “Safety measures are likely to prevent mishaps.” The speaker links enhanced outlays to safer journeys (“will go a long way in ensuring a safe and sound journey”). If better safety spending had no effect, the claim would be meaningless. Thus the effectiveness of safety measures is a necessary premise. II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negating II (“spending more on safety does not improve outcomes”) would make the hope of safer journeys irrational, undermining the core of the statement. This confirms II must hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: incorrect because I is not required. Either I or II: incorrect because the statement specifically depends on II. Neither: incorrect since II is needed. Common Pitfalls: Equating a decision to improve safety with an admission of total past failure; over-reading political rhetoric as evidence of deficiency. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 19

Statement–Assumption (Educated vs. Computer-Literate in the Present Scenario): Statement: “Even educated people will be termed illiterates if they are not computer-literate in the present scenario.” Assumptions: I) Every educated person needs to be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement redefines practical literacy standards by tying social functionality to computer skills. We must decide which hidden premises are indispensable to the assertion that “even educated people” may be labelled illiterate if they lack computer literacy. Given Data / Assumptions: Definitional shift: functional/modern literacy includes computer skills. Temporal qualifier: “in the present scenario.” Comparison: formal education versus digital competence. Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit only if the statement relies on it to remain meaningful. We test each option using the “negation test.” Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If educated persons do not need to be computer-literate, then calling them illiterate due to lack of computer skills would not follow. The statement’s thrust depends on the norm that modern literacy entails computer literacy. Hence I is implicit.Assumption II: The statement does not claim that computer expertise alone equals “educated.” It only warns that lacking computer literacy could invite an “illiterate” label despite other education. Thus II is not required. Verification / Alternative check: Negating I collapses the claim’s rationale; negating II leaves it intact because the statement never equates “computer expert” with “educated.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II, either/or, and neither all fail because I is necessary while II is unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a necessary component of modern literacy (basic computer skills) with sufficiency for being “educated.” Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 20

Statement–Assumption (Pollution, Lost Purity, and Healthy Living): Statement: “There was a time when rivers were pure, earth clean, and air clear. Those days have gone. But there are still ways for you to live healthy.” Assumptions: I) Environmental…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts a pristine past with a polluted present but offers hope that individuals can still live healthily. We must find which assumption the message necessarily relies upon. Given Data / Assumptions: Past: pure rivers, clean earth, clear air. Present: environmental degradation acknowledged. Advice: pathways to healthy living still exist. Concept / Approach: For the advice to be meaningful, there must be a causal or correlational link between environment and health; otherwise the environmental commentary would be irrelevant to the call for healthy living strategies. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If environmental quality did not affect health, contrasting past purity with present pollution would not set up the relevance of “still living healthy.” The argument presumes environment matters to health outcomes. Hence I is implicit.Assumption II: Assigning blame (people are responsible) is not necessary. The statement never attributes agency; it only describes the state of the environment and proceeds to advice. Therefore II is not implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negating I severs the logic between environmental decline and health-focused advice; the message loses force. Negating II leaves the message intact because causation (who caused pollution) is not used in the argument. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options containing II overreach; “neither” disregards the essential health–environment linkage. Common Pitfalls: Reading moral blame into a statement that is primarily descriptive and advisory. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions