Question 1

Transport and constraints: Due to many potholes on road X, reaching the airport in time is difficult — identify the implicit assumption about alternative routes

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement: Because of many potholes on road X, reaching the airport in time has become difficult. Assumption I: Reaching the airport in time may not always be necessary. Assumption II: There is no other convenient road to the airport. Concept/Approach To attribute the difficulty to road X, one must assume people cannot readily avoid that road with an equally convenient alternative. The necessity of punctual arrival is unrelated to the causal claim. Step-by-Step reasoning 1) If an equally convenient alternative route existed, the potholes on X would not generally make timely arrival difficult ⇒ II is implicit.2) Whether punctuality is essential does not affect the truth of the difficulty claim ⇒ I is not implicit. Verification/Alternative Consider a scenario with a smooth, equally quick route Y. Then potholes on X would not broadly cause difficulty, contradicting the statement. Hence II is required. Common pitfalls Confusing the normative need for punctuality with the causal barrier described. Final Answer Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 2

Critical Reasoning – Assumptions: The statement says, "Safety and health practices in many Indian companies are well below the international standards." Determine which of the following assumptions is/are implicit in this assertion: (I) Internationa…

Accepted Answer

Given data Statement under evaluation: Safety and health practices in many Indian companies are well below international standards. Assumption I: International standards are ideal and unrealistic. Assumption II: Indian organizations do not consider safety and health management a prime social responsibility. Concept/Approach The implicit-assumption test asks: Which unstated belief must hold true for the statement to make sense? If the statement can remain true even when an assumption is denied, that assumption is not implicit. Step-by-step reasoning • The statement is a comparative claim (actual practices vs. a benchmark). It does not evaluate the benchmark as 'ideal' or 'unrealistic' (Assumption I). Even if the standards are realistic, or even if they are aspirational, the comparison could still be true. So I is not necessary.• The statement does not offer a cause for the gap. Many reasons (cost, capability, awareness, regulation) could explain 'well below'. Therefore, it does not require the sweeping causal claim that firms do not consider H&S a prime social responsibility (Assumption II). Verification/Alternative Deny I: Standards realistic → the statement can still hold. Deny II: Firms may consider H&S important yet still lag due to constraints → statement can still hold. Common pitfalls Confusing a reason for the gap with a necessary presupposition. Reading value judgments about standards into a purely comparative statement. Final Answer Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Critical Reasoning – Assumptions in public administration: The Municipal Commissioner of City A states, "Greater public participation results in good civic governance." Identify which assumption(s) are implicit: (I) The municipal office is not compe…

Accepted Answer

Given data Claim: Increasing public participation → better civic governance. Assumption I: Municipal office lacks competence to deliver good governance. Assumption II: Governance quality arises from joint effort of people + administration (collective will). Concept/Approach An implicit assumption must be necessary for the claim's plausibility, not merely a possible criticism or alternative explanation. Step-by-step reasoning • The statement advocates participation as a contributory factor; it does not assert that the office is incompetent without it. Thus, I is not required.• The claim logically presupposes that outcomes improve when citizens and administration act together, i.e., governance is a co-produced public good. Hence, II is necessary. Verification/Alternative Deny II (governance depends only on administration): then extra participation would not improve governance → contradicts the statement's thrust. Deny I (office is competent): the statement can still hold (competent + engaged public is even better). Common pitfalls Equating 'needs public participation' with 'administration is incompetent'. Final Answer Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 4

Critical Reasoning – Market regulation: A regulatory authority sets up a review committee to identify reasons for unstable stock prices. Determine which assumption(s) are implicit: (I) This decision may restore investor confidence; (II) The committe…

Accepted Answer

Given data Action: Establish a review committee to find causes of price instability. Assumption I: Investor confidence may improve because of this decision. Assumption II: The committee is capable (has expertise) to find the causes. Concept/Approach The minimal necessary assumption is about the feasibility of the action achieving its stated purpose (diagnosis), not about secondary outcomes like sentiment. Step-by-step reasoning • The stated goal is to 'find out reasons'. For this, it must be assumed the committee can, in principle, perform such analysis → II is necessary.• Investor confidence (I) may be an intended benefit but is not necessary to justify forming a diagnostic committee; the committee could be set up even if sentiment did not change. Verification/Alternative Deny II: If the committee lacks expertise, the setup is pointless with respect to the stated purpose → undermines the decision. Deny I: Confidence may or may not improve; the action is still rational for fact-finding. Common pitfalls Confusing hoped-for outcomes (confidence) with necessary assumptions (capability). Final Answer Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 5

Critical Reasoning – Recruitment condition analysis: An advertisement specifies, "Accommodation will be provided only to outside candidates (if selected)." Identify the implicit assumption(s): (I) Local candidates already have or can arrange their o…

Accepted Answer

Given data Condition: Company housing is restricted to 'outside' candidates if selected. Assumption I: Local candidates do not need company accommodation (have arrangements). Assumption II: Company plans to select only local candidates. Concept/Approach We test necessity: the condition must make practical sense in the recruitment context. Step-by-step reasoning • The policy distinguishes 'outside' from 'local'. Its rationale necessarily assumes locals can manage housing without company support → I is implicit.• Nothing about the condition implies the selection will be local-only; it merely states the benefit eligibility. Hence II is not necessary. Verification/Alternative Deny I: If locals also need housing, the condition is arbitrary and counterproductive. Deny II: Even with many outside hires, the policy still stands. Common pitfalls Reading eligibility criteria as predictive of final selection. Final Answer Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 6

Critical Reasoning – Interpreting public-health statements: "Cases of food poisoning due to consumption of liquor are increasing in rural areas." Decide which assumption(s) are implicit: (I) The percentage of liquor consumers is higher in rural area…

Accepted Answer

Given data Observation: Liquor-related food-poisoning cases are rising in rural areas. Assumption I: Rural liquor-consumption rate (as a percentage) exceeds that of other areas. Assumption II: Rural areas have many unauthorized/spurious liquor shops. Concept/Approach The statement reports a trend (increase) within rural areas. It does not compare rural vs. urban consumption percentages, nor does it assert a specific cause. Step-by-step reasoning • The increase can occur regardless of whether rural consumption percentage is higher or lower than elsewhere → I is not necessary.• The trend could be due to storage issues, contamination, or episodic illicit brewing; the statement does not require the specific causal claim of widespread spurious outlets → II is not necessary. Verification/Alternative Deny I: Even with equal/lower consumption, cases can still rise → statement holds. Deny II: Even with authorized shops, other factors can raise cases → statement holds. Common pitfalls Importing a favored cause into a trend statement without textual support. Confusing intra-area trends with inter-area comparisons. Final Answer Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 7

Critical Reasoning – Early childhood development: "Lack of stimulation in the first four or five years of life can have adverse consequences." Identify which assumption(s) are implicit: (I) A large part of observed intelligence develops in the earli…

Accepted Answer

Given data Claim: Low stimulation in ages 0–5 → adverse consequences. Assumption I: Early years are critical for intelligence development. Assumption II: A precise quantitative claim (50% at 17 predictable by age 4). Concept/Approach To justify the strong emphasis on early stimulation, one must accept the qualitative importance of early development (I). A specific numeric threshold (II) is not required for the claim to stand. Step-by-step reasoning • If early years were not critical, lack of stimulation would not be strongly consequential → I must hold.• The statement does not rely on an exact percentage; any substantial early impact suffices → II is not necessary. Verification/Alternative Deny I → undermines the causal link. Deny II → the qualitative claim remains fully intact. Common pitfalls Assuming a qualitative claim commits to a specific quantitative metric. Final Answer Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 8

Critical Reasoning – Pricing decision by an airline: "X-Airlines has increased passenger fares by 15% with immediate effect." Determine which assumption(s) are implicit: (I) Demand for X-Airlines seats will remain largely unchanged despite the fare …

Accepted Answer

Given data Action: Immediate 15% fare increase by X-Airlines. Assumption I: Demand is sufficiently inelastic (will not fall enough to make the hike unprofitable). Assumption II: Rival airlines will also raise fares. Concept/Approach A firm raising prices assumes it won't lose proportionately more revenue (i.e., demand won't collapse). Competitive reactions are speculative and not essential for the decision's rationale. Step-by-step reasoning • If demand were highly elastic, an immediate hike could reduce revenue; assuming some stickiness/inelasticity (I) is necessary.• The decision can be taken independently of competitors' actions; thus II is not necessary. Verification/Alternative Deny I → the hike backfires; the decision lacks business sense. Deny II → rivals may or may not react; X's choice still stands. Common pitfalls Overstating the role of competitor behavior in every pricing move. Final Answer Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 9

Critical Reasoning – Banking practice and collateral: Shalini applies to a bank for a Rs. 1,80,000 loan by mortgaging her house and promises to repay within five years. Identify the implicit assumption(s): (I) The bank routinely grants loans of Rs. …

Accepted Answer

Given data Applicant: Shalini. Loan request: Rs. 1,80,000 with her house mortgaged; tenure promised: 5 years. Assumption I: Bank's practice includes loans ≥ Rs. 1,00,000. Assumption II: Bank accepts a house as collateral against such loans. Concept/Approach The action described (mortgaging a house to obtain a bank loan) presupposes that the bank accepts a house as valid security. The exact internal threshold practice for amounts ≥ Rs. 1,00,000 is not a necessary presupposition. Step-by-step reasoning • Without II, offering a house as collateral would be meaningless; therefore II is necessary.• Even if the bank did not 'routinely' grant ≥ Rs. 1,00,000, applicants can still apply; the statement does not require a pre-existing practice (I). Verification/Alternative Deny II → the described collateral structure collapses. Deny I → the application can still be made; approval is not presupposed. Common pitfalls Confusing an applicant's action with the bank's historical norms. Final Answer Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 10

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: Many historians have done more harm than good by distorting truth. Assumptions: I. People believe what is reported by the historians. II. Historians are seldom expected to depict the truth.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to identify implicit assumptions in a critical reasoning statement. The speaker claims that many historians have caused more harm than good by distorting truth. To evaluate which assumptions are underlying this claim, we must determine what must be true for the speaker's conclusion to make sense, even if left unstated. Given Data / Assumptions: Main claim: Distortion of truth by historians causes net harm. Assumption I: People believe what historians report. Assumption II: Historians are seldom expected to depict the truth. Concept / Approach: An implicit assumption is a statement that is not expressed directly but must hold for the argument's logic to work. Here, if historians' distortions are said to harm society, the harm plausibly arises because their distorted accounts influence readers' beliefs or public understanding. Thus, some acceptance of historian reports by people is necessary. In contrast, whether historians are expected to tell the truth is not required for the harm claim; harm can occur regardless of expectations. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the mechanism of harm: distortion → public misinformed → harmful outcomes.For this chain to operate, audiences must trust or believe historians at least to some extent → supports Assumption I.Expectation about historians telling the truth (Assumption II) is not required for harm. Harm can occur even if the public does expect truth or if they do not; expectation is irrelevant to the causal claim.Therefore only Assumption I is necessary and implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the negation test. If people did not believe historians at all, their distortions would have little or no influence, undermining the claim of significant harm. Negating Assumption I collapses the argument, confirming that it is required. Negating Assumption II (historians are expected to depict the truth) does not affect the harm mechanism, showing it is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only assumption II is implicit: Incorrect; expectation is not essential to the harm claim. Either I or II is implicit: Incorrect; the argument needs I specifically. Neither I nor II is implicit: Incorrect; I is needed. Both I and II are implicit: Overstates; II is not necessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing moral expectations or professional norms with causal prerequisites. The argument concerns the impact of distorted accounts, which depends on audience belief, not on professional expectations. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 11

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: "As there is a great demand, every person seeking tickets of the programme will be given only five tickets." Assumptions: I. The organizers are not keen on selling the tickets. II. No one is i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a typical assumption question about a ticketing policy. Because demand is high, the organizers restrict each buyer to a maximum of five tickets. We must decide which statements must be true for the restriction to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: Maximum five tickets per person due to great demand. Assumption I: Organizers are not keen to sell tickets. Assumption II: No one wants more than five tickets. Concept / Approach: An implicit assumption is a necessary condition for the decision's logic, not a mere possibility. A per-person cap is a rationing device to distribute scarce tickets fairly and widely when demand is strong. It does not imply lack of interest in selling nor that no buyer wants more than five tickets. Step-by-Step Solution: Interpret the policy: 'Five per person' ensures broader access under scarcity.Check Assumption I: If organizers were not keen to sell, they would not cite high demand and would not set a policy that still enables substantial sales. The cap regulates distribution; it does not reduce overall sales interest. Hence I is not necessary.Check Assumption II: The cap is created precisely because many might want more than five; nothing requires that buyers limit themselves voluntarily. Hence II is not necessary.Conclusion: Neither I nor II is required. Verification / Alternative check: Negation testing: Suppose people do want more than five tickets; the cap still serves its purpose. Suppose the organizers do want to sell all tickets; a cap ensures wider reach without contradicting that goal. The argument holds without I or II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/ Both: Each incorrectly treats a nonessential claim as necessary. The policy is justified by scarcity and fairness, not by these assumptions. Common Pitfalls: Equating rationing with unwillingness to sell, or assuming the cap mirrors customers' natural demand. Caps exist because demand often exceeds a fair-share limit. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 12

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: "Computer education should start at schools itself." Assumptions: I. Learning computers is easy. II. Computer education fetches jobs easily.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The recommendation is to begin computer education at the school level. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for this recommendation to be sensible. Many possible reasons can motivate early computer education (digital literacy, future readiness, curricular integration), but we only mark as implicit what must be true for the recommendation to stand. Given Data / Assumptions: Recommendation: Start computer education in schools. Assumption I: Learning computers is easy. Assumption II: Computer education leads to jobs easily. Concept / Approach: An implicit assumption is indispensable to the recommendation. The claim does not hinge on ease of learning (even if it were difficult, early exposure could still be advisable). Nor does it require that computer education directly fetch jobs; the rationale could be foundational literacy, not immediate employability. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: The proposal could be valid whether learning is easy or difficult. Difficulty level is not central to the decision.Assess II: While jobs may be a benefit, the recommendation does not rely on a job guarantee. It could be for general competence, citizenship, or future learning readiness.Thus, neither I nor II is required by the argument. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I (learning is not easy) — early schooling might still be a good time to start because basics can be built progressively. Negate II (no direct job guarantee) — digital literacy can still be educationally valuable without immediate employment outcomes. The recommendation survives both negations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both: Each imposes a narrow motive not demanded by the statement. The statement is an educational policy view, not a claim about ease or certain jobs. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single motive such as employability or ease. Policy recommendations can have multiple independent justifications. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 13

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination. Assumptions: I. To pass, he must be intelligent. II. He will pass the examination.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement is a conditional (if–then) claim. Such claims often tempt test-takers to assume the converse (reversing the direction) or to infer the antecedent is true. The task is to identify which assumptions must hold for the conditional to be reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: Conditional claim: If intelligent → then pass. Assumption I: Passing requires intelligence (the converse or necessity claim). Assumption II: He will pass (asserting the consequent as true). Concept / Approach: A conditional does not assert either that the antecedent is necessary (only sufficient is stated) or that the antecedent actually holds. Therefore, neither I nor II must be true. The statement merely links intelligence as a sufficient condition to passing — it does not claim intelligence is the only way to pass, nor that he is indeed intelligent. Step-by-Step Solution: Parse the logic: 'If P then Q' does not imply 'Only if P then Q' or 'P is true' or 'Q is true'.Assumption I would convert a sufficient condition into a necessary one; this is not required.Assumption II would assert the consequent Q; the statement does not commit to that.Hence, neither assumption is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negation test: If passing does not require intelligence (some pass through hard work), the original conditional could still be valid. If he does not pass (perhaps he was not intelligent or other factors intervened), the original conditional is not contradicted. So neither assumption is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both: Each adds claims not demanded by the minimal conditional structure. Common Pitfalls: Conflating sufficiency with necessity or assuming the antecedent is asserted as fact. Guard against the converse and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 14

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: Today I must satisfy myself only by looking at a pink-headed duck in an encyclopaedia. Assumptions: I. Pink-headed ducks are as good as extinct now. II. People refer to an encyclopaedia only t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker says they must be content with merely viewing a pink-headed duck in an encyclopaedia today. This suggests that seeing a real specimen is not feasible at present. We must determine which assumptions are required by this remark. Given Data / Assumptions: Desire to see a pink-headed duck, but only possible in a reference book today. Assumption I: The species is practically extinct or at least not observable. Assumption II: Encyclopaedias are used only for non-existent things. Concept / Approach: For the statement to make sense, it must be hard or impossible to see the bird in real life now. That is captured by Assumption I. The second assumption is overly strong and false; people consult encyclopaedias for existing and non-existing things alike, so II is not required. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify why the speaker relies on a book: real-world viewing is not possible now.Assumption I accounts for non-availability (extinction/near-extinction/rarity).Assumption II claims an exclusive function of encyclopaedias; the statement does not depend on that.Therefore, only I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I: If pink-headed ducks were easily observable today, the speaker would not need to rely on an encyclopaedia, undercutting the statement. Negate II: Encyclopaedias can be used for many purposes; the original statement still makes sense. Thus I is required; II is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Neither/Both: Each either excludes the necessary I or adds an unnecessary II. Common Pitfalls: Interpreting 'look in an encyclopaedia' as implying that the subject no longer exists. The correct reading is about present inaccessibility, not an encyclopaedia's exclusive scope. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 15

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: The organization should promote employees on the basis of merit alone and not on the basis of length of service or seniority. Assumptions: I. Length of service or seniority does not alone refl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This policy recommendation prioritizes merit over tenure or seniority for promotions. We must uncover what must be accepted for such a recommendation to be meaningful and implementable. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy: Promote on merit alone; do not use length of service/seniority. Assumption I: Tenure or seniority does not reliably indicate merit. Assumption II: Merit can be assessed/measured. Concept / Approach: To justify rejecting seniority as a criterion, the recommender must assume that seniority is not a sufficient proxy for performance or capability (I). Additionally, to make a merit-only policy feasible, it must be possible to define and evaluate merit in practice (II). Without II, the recommendation is not actionable. Step-by-Step Solution: Examine the reason to exclude seniority: implies seniority ≠ merit → supports I.Check feasibility: a 'merit-only' system requires measurable criteria → supports II.Both assumptions are necessary to give the statement force and practicality. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I: If seniority perfectly reflected merit, discarding it would be irrational. Negate II: If merit could not be determined, 'merit-only' promotions become impossible. Either negation undermines the recommendation, confirming that both I and II are implicit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Neither: Each omits a necessary condition—either the rationale for excluding seniority or the feasibility of measuring merit. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that practical recommendations require implementability. Policy logic hinges on both normative and operational assumptions. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 16

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: "But out of A, B, C and D products, you buy B which alone is based on the international technology." — a shopkeeper tells a customer. Assumptions: I. Customers normally accept the recommendati…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Here a shopkeeper recommends product B, citing that it alone uses international technology. Which assumptions underlie this persuasive move? We must separate what is necessary for the recommendation's relevance from what is merely possible about customer behavior. Given Data / Assumptions: Recommendation criterion: international technology. Assumption I: Customers normally accept shopkeeper recommendations. Assumption II: International technology implies better quality standards. Concept / Approach: The recommendation is intended to influence the buyer by highlighting a quality-related attribute. For the argument to have force, the cited attribute must be taken as desirable (II). Whether customers usually accept recommendations (I) is not required; the shopkeeper can still present reasons without presuming compliance. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the persuasive link: 'international technology' → presumed better quality → buy B.Assumption II is necessary; otherwise the attribute provides no reason to choose B.Assumption I concerns customer behavior patterns; the recommendation remains meaningful even if customers often ignore such advice.Hence, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negate II: If international technology did not connote quality, the argument loses its rationale. Negate I: Even if customers rarely accept advice, giving a quality-based reason is still rational; the statement need not assume compliance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Either/Neither/Both: These either ignore the quality link (II) or incorrectly require presumed compliance (I). Common Pitfalls: Confusing persuasive intent with guaranteed acceptance. Arguments require the relevance of the cited reason, not a prediction of audience behavior. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit

Question 17

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: "If you want to give any advertisement, give it in the newspaper X." — A tells B. Assumptions: I. B wants to publicise his products. II. Newspaper X has a wide circulation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A advises B to place any advertisement in newspaper X. To decide which assumptions are implicit, consider what must be true for this advice to be relevant and helpful to B's likely goal. Given Data / Assumptions: A makes a specific media recommendation (newspaper X) for advertisements. Assumption I: B indeed aims to publicise products/services (i.e., needs advertising). Assumption II: Newspaper X has sufficient reach (wide circulation) to make advertising effective. Concept / Approach: Advice about where to advertise presupposes that advertising is B's intention (I) and that the recommended medium is effective (II). Without these, the suggestion lacks relevance or value. Step-by-Step Solution: Link advice to B's goal: If B seeks publicity, picking a high-reach medium is sensible.Assumption I: If B has no need to publicise, the advice is pointless.Assumption II: If newspaper X lacks circulation, the advice is poor; thus II is required.Therefore, both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I: B is not advertising anything → the suggestion becomes irrelevant. Negate II: X has poor reach → the advice would not be effective. The statement depends on both I and II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Neither: Each drops a necessary condition for the advice to be useful. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the two-part nature of practical advice: a goal implied in the listener and a claimed effectiveness of the recommended channel. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 18

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement: Kartik left for Delhi on Tuesday by train to attend a function to be held on Friday at his uncle's house in Delhi. Assumptions: I. Kartik may reach Delhi on Wednesday. II. Kartik may reach Del…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement narrates travel plans: Kartik left on Tuesday by train to attend a Friday function in Delhi. We must identify what the speaker must assume for this plan to be sensible. Given Data / Assumptions: Departure: Tuesday by train. Event: Friday in Delhi. Assumption I: Arrival specifically on Wednesday is possible. Assumption II: Arrival before Friday is possible. Concept / Approach: The core presumption is feasibility: that the travel schedule allows Kartik to be there before the Friday function (II). The precise day of arrival (Wednesday) is just one possibility among several and is not required by the plan. Step-by-Step Solution: Determine what is necessary: reaching before the event.Assumption II captures that essential feasibility (before Friday).Assumption I is a specific timeline detail not necessary; arrival could be Thursday or even Friday morning.Thus, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negate II: If reaching before Friday were not possible, leaving Tuesday would not serve the stated purpose. Negate I: If Wednesday arrival were not possible but Thursday were, the plan still works. Hence II is required; I is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Either/Neither/Both: These either elevate a nonessential detail (I) or miss the necessary feasibility assumption (II). Common Pitfalls: Confusing a concrete example timeline with a necessary condition. Plans rely on arriving in time, not on a particular intermediate date. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit

Question 19

Critical reasoning — assumptions (implicit):  Statement (advertisement): "Avon Cycles — fast, easy to ride, impressive, reliable, crafted and up-to-date automation." Assumptions: I. There is no other cycle with any of these features. II. People do n…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Advertisements typically highlight product features to persuade buyers. The claim lists speed, ease, reliability, craftsmanship, and modern automation for Avon Cycles. We must decide which assumptions must hold for the ad to function as intended. Given Data / Assumptions: Ad lists desirable features of the product. Assumption I: Uniqueness — no other cycle has any of these features. Assumption II: Consumers ignore cost. Concept / Approach: For an ad to make sense, it need not assume uniqueness; comparative or absolute claims about features can persuade even if rivals share some attributes. Nor must it assume people ignore price; the ad simply emphasizes features, leaving price sensitivity unaddressed. Therefore, neither I nor II is required. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the ad's thrust: highlight features to project value.Check I: Uniqueness is not asserted or needed. The ad can attract buyers even if competitors also have similar features.Check II: Consumers may care about cost; the ad does not rely on indifference to price to be persuasive.Hence, neither I nor II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I: Other cycles also offer these features — the ad still functions by informing that Avon has them too. Negate II: People do care about cost — the ad still offers reasons (features) that may justify their purchase decision within budget constraints. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both: Each attaches unnecessary assumptions that are not required by the mere act of feature-promotion. Common Pitfalls: Assuming ads always claim uniqueness or price irrelevance. Many ads simply highlight benefits without committing to exclusivity or dismissing cost. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 20

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Statement: 'Private property, trespassers will be prosecuted' — a notice on a plot of land. Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to detect unstated assumptions behind a practical statement. A property owner posts a notice: 'Private property, trespassers will be prosecuted.' We must decide which assumptions must be true for the notice to have its intended effect. Given Data / Assumptions: I: The passerby may read the notice and may not trespass. II: The people are scared of prosecution. Concept / Approach: An assumption is a fact that the author of the statement takes for granted and that must hold for the action to make sense. Ask: if an assumption were false, would the statement lose purpose or persuasive force? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Purpose of the notice: deter trespassing by warning of legal action.2) For deterrence to work, passersby must be able to receive the message; hence literacy/legibility and attention are assumed (Assumption I).3) The threat must influence behavior. That requires people to care about possible prosecution (penalties, hassle, cost), implying fear or concern (Assumption II).4) If either I or II fails (cannot read or do not care about prosecution), the notice largely fails its purpose. Verification / Alternative check: Consider counterfactuals: illiterate passersby or those indifferent to prosecution are unlikely to be deterred, undermining the rationale for posting such a notice. Therefore both assumptions underpin the notice's effectiveness. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: The notice needs both communication (I) and motivation via deterrence (II). Either I or II: One alone is insufficient to ensure deterrence. Neither I nor II: Would render the notice purposeless. Common Pitfalls: Do not over-interpret 'scared' as panic; it suffices that people wish to avoid legal trouble. Also, assumption I does not demand everyone reads it—only that the intended audience can and will generally do so. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions