Question 1

Statement: “No war, yet 1,874 Indian Army personnel were killed or injured during the 10-month forward deployment along the Indo-Pak border last year,” says an opposition leader. Assumptions I & II: I. Soldiers lack basic necessities such as decent …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker highlights a high casualty figure “despite no war,” implicitly criticizing the situation. We must identify which premises are required by this criticism. Note the statement does not specify causes (equipment, training, terrain) or compare against an “estimated limit.” Given Data / Assumptions: I. Troops lack necessary protective gear. II. Casualties exceed an established estimate. Concept / Approach: The political point is rhetorical: casualties are troubling even without declared war. This sentiment does not need a claim about inadequate gear (I) or reference to a benchmark (II). It could be driven by dangerous patrols, infiltration, mines, weather, or accidents—none asserted. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The statement observes casualty numbers and contrasts them with “no war.”2) It does not attribute causation to equipment deficiencies (I); many causal stories could fit.3) It does not cite or require an official casualty cap (II) to make the rhetorical point; the absolute number itself is used to shock. Verification / Alternative check: Even if gear were adequate and casualties within historical variance, the speaker could still lament high numbers in peacetime deployment. Hence neither I nor II is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both all import details (cause or benchmarks) not needed for the contrast to be meaningful. Common Pitfalls: Reading implied causation into political rhetoric; the statement stays at the level of contrast and concern. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 2

Statement: “Instead of limiting capital punishment to the rarest of the rare cases, it should be made mandatory for crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, child molestation, and anti-national activities. If a person does not respect the law, le…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement advocates expanding mandatory capital punishment, offering a deterrence rationale: “If a person does not respect the law, let him at least fear it.” We must identify which premises are necessary. Note the focus is on deterrence via fear, not on execution methods or moral desert of kindness. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Death sentences should be painless. II. Heinous-crime convicts deserve no kindness whatsoever. Concept / Approach: The policy claim turns on the belief that harsher, certain penalties deter crime by increasing expected costs to offenders. Neither the painlessness of execution (I) nor a comprehensive denial of kindness (II) is needed to support that deterrence logic. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The key premise is: severe mandatory penalties increase fear and thus deter (general/specific deterrence). Neither I nor II states this.2) I concerns humane administration—orthogonal to deterrence.3) II asserts a moral stance about kindness; deterrence can be endorsed even by those who still support procedural kindness (e.g., due process, humane treatment). Verification / Alternative check: The argument would proceed identically whether executions were painless or whether limited kindness remained (e.g., last rites). Hence neither I nor II is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both add moral or procedural details not necessary for deterrence-based advocacy. Common Pitfalls: Confusing policy rationale (deterrence) with separate debates (humane methods, retribution vs rehabilitation). Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement: “Claims that State X is progressing industrially are tall; unemployment rising by leaps and bounds is enough to corroborate that,” says a politician of State X. Assumptions I & II: I. If the state were progressing on the industrial front,…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The politician rejects “industrial progress” claims by citing rising unemployment as contradictory evidence. The argument treats unemployment as a proxy for industrial performance. We must extract the necessary premise(s) behind this inference. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Genuine industrial progress tends to reduce unemployment (or at least not let it surge). II. Industrial progress reduces financial crunch. Concept / Approach: To use rising unemployment as a rebuttal to industrial progress claims, one must assume a negative relationship between industrial progress and unemployment (I). Claim II about “financial crunch” is not used in the argument; it is extraneous. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The structure is modus tollens–like: If industrial progress, then lower (or stable) unemployment; but unemployment is rising sharply; therefore, not progressing.2) This requires I to connect progress to unemployment. 3) Statement II concerns fiscal conditions and is not part of the unemployment-based refutation. Verification / Alternative check: The politician’s claim collapses if industrial progress can coexist with rising unemployment (e.g., automation with jobless growth). Hence I is indeed the hinge premise; II is irrelevant to this specific reasoning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both/Neither misrepresent the logical dependence of the argument. Common Pitfalls: Assuming every metric must move together; here the speaker specifically leans on unemployment as the barometer, which needs I. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 4

Statement: In a bid to discourage cattle owners from letting their animals roam on public roads, the Municipal Corporation of city X has increased the fine from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. Assumptions: I. Increasing the fine may reduce the stray-cattle prob…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement reports a policy change: the Municipal Corporation raises the monetary penalty for allowing cattle to stray on roads from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. The goal is deterrence—reducing road obstruction, accidents, and sanitation hazards. The task is to identify which assumptions must be true for the decision to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed action: fine enhanced from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. Stated aim: discourage owners from letting cattle loose on roads. Assumption I: a higher fine can decrease the stray-cattle menace. Assumption II: the new amount is large enough that owners will promptly retrieve cattle. Concept / Approach: In statement–assumption problems, an assumption is implicit if the action would lose purpose without it. Policy tools like fines rely on deterrence logic: higher expected cost influences behavior. However, they do not require that the exact rupee amount be “large” for every owner—only that increasing penalties tends to improve compliance. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The move from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000 presupposes that penalties influence behavior; otherwise, the increase would be purposeless. This supports Assumption I.2) Assumption II is stronger: it asserts sufficiency and uniform responsiveness (“quite a large sum” and “should prompt” early retrieval). The statement does not need this stronger claim; owners vary in income and responsiveness, and enforcement also matters.3) Therefore, only Assumption I is necessary for the policy to make sense. Verification / Alternative check: Even if Rs 5000 is not “large” for some owners, incremental deterrence can still operate through repeated penalties, seizure powers, or escalations. The policy’s logic stands with I alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Sufficiency of amount is not required; the policy could work partially or via enforcement. Either / Both: Include an unnecessary strength claim in II. Neither: Rejects deterrence logic underpinning fines. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “some positive effect” with “guaranteed and immediate compliance.” Policies generally assume probabilistic deterrence, not absolute. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement: "Learn to solve Quantitative Aptitude questions in 3 seconds, plus Data Interpretation without written steps—taught by our experts—or get Rs 10,000 back as a penalty." — an advertisement by XYZ Coaching Institute. Assumptions: I. A candid…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a persuasive claim by a coaching institute offering dramatic performance gains (solving in “3 seconds”, DI with “no written steps”), sweetened by a money-back penalty. We must detect what the advertisement must assume, not what it merely suggests rhetorically. Given Data / Assumptions: The institute promises speed and mental-work techniques. There is a Rs 10,000 penalty/guarantee mechanism. Assumption I: candidates cannot even read a question in 3 seconds. Assumption II: DI without written work is hard for all aspirants. Concept / Approach: An ad typically assumes current difficulty exists for many students, so its service is valuable. But “many” is not “all”, and inability to read a question in 3 seconds is not required for the promise: they claim to teach scanning heuristics and patterns. The guarantee is a marketing device indicating confidence, not logical proof of I or II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If candidates can read quickly already, the course could still claim to improve solving speed. So I is not necessary.2) If some aspirants can do DI mentally already, the offer still stands for the rest; II’s universal “for all” is too strong.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is a necessary underpinning of the ad’s promise. Verification / Alternative check: Guarantees often operate as signals; they do not define the logical minimum assumptions beyond “some students will benefit.” That weaker assumption is not among I or II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Both: Overstate the ad’s commitments. Either: At least one of I or II must be necessary; neither is. Common Pitfalls: Reading superlative marketing literally as logical necessity; treat universals (“all”, strict time) with caution. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: The High Court of state X has decided to abolish summer vacations to clear pending cases. Assumptions: I. Court vacations are a legacy of the colonial (Raj) period. II. This step will compel the Government to fill all judicial vacancies.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The court chooses to work through the usual vacation period to accelerate case disposal. We must identify necessary assumptions behind this operational decision, not broader historical or political claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: abolishing summer vacation to reduce backlog. No statement about the origin of vacations. No statement promising executive (Government) action on vacancies. Concept / Approach: For the decision to make sense, the court only needs to assume that additional sitting days aid backlog reduction. Claims about colonial vestiges (I) or compelling Government to fill vacancies (II) are not required to justify the schedule change. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If I is false (vacations are not colonial), the decision can still be justified by throughput gains.2) If II is false (Government does not fill vacancies), the court may still gain extra disposal capacity by sitting more days.3) Hence, neither I nor II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Operational levers (more hearing days, longer benches, case triage) improve disposal independent of executive hiring cycles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options asserting I or II as necessary add extraneous motives not inherent in the action. Common Pitfalls: Attributing symbolic or political motives when a simpler operational rationale suffices. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 7

Statement: The Government transferred the entire staff of police station X and ordered a magisterial inquiry into the mysterious death of a man in police custody. Assumptions: I. A magisterial inquiry can uncover the cause of death in custody. II. T…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In suspected custodial-death cases, governments often combine fact-finding (independent inquiry) with administrative steps (transfers) to reduce interference. We must decide which assumptions are necessary for this twin action to be sensible. Given Data / Assumptions: Magisterial inquiry is ordered. Entire station staff is transferred. I: Inquiry can reveal cause/circumstances. II: Transfers help fairness by preventing influence or evidence tampering. Concept / Approach: Fact-finding presupposes capability to discover truth; administrative insulation presupposes that those potentially involved should not remain in positions affecting the process. Both are standard integrity safeguards. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, ordering an inquiry would be pointless.2) Without II, wholesale transfers would be unnecessary overreach; their logic is to remove conflict-of-interest risks.3) Therefore, both assumptions are necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Independent inquiries worldwide commonly rely on separation of potentially implicated personnel to preserve process integrity, reinforcing both I and II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option omitting I or II ignores a core rationale for the dual measures. Common Pitfalls: Thinking that “inquiry” alone suffices; process design also guards against interference. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 8

Statement: "Bring your education dreams to life. Avail a student loan today and start repayment only when you begin earning." — an advertisement by Bank XYZ. Assumptions: I. Students who need loans prefer flexible repayment options (such as repaymen…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The bank targets students by highlighting a deferred-repayment feature (“pay when you start earning”). The persuasive hook is timing flexibility, easing cash-flow while studying. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for this appeal to work. Given Data / Assumptions: Feature: repayment begins after employment. Audience: students needing finance for education. I: students prefer flexible repayment timing. II: students prefer no collateral. Concept / Approach: The ad’s core value proposition is timing flexibility. It does not mention collateral; it could be secured or unsecured. Therefore, the only necessary assumption is that deferred repayment is attractive to students (I). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If I were false (students did not value timing flexibility), the ad’s pitch would fail.2) If II were false (collateral is required or not a top preference), the ad can still be persuasive because it sells repayment timing, not security terms.3) Hence, only I is needed. Verification / Alternative check: Deferred repayment aligns with typical student cash-flow constraints; many global student-loan schemes use similar design. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options invoking II add a feature not referenced and not required for the ad’s logic. Common Pitfalls: Assuming every desirable loan feature (no collateral, low rates) is implicitly claimed; focus on the explicit selling point. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 9

Statement: To make the Conditional Access System (CAS) more consumer-friendly, the Government notified that cable operators must declare pay-channel rates by June 15. Assumptions: I. Cable operators may be unable to declare rates by June 15 due to i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The notification mandates price disclosure by a set date to enhance transparency for consumers. We must evaluate whether the two proposed assumptions are necessary to justify such regulation. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy goal: consumer-friendliness via price transparency. Instrument: deadline-based disclosure. I: operators may lack time (implied difficulty). II: each firm wants to test markets on its own (generic business motive). Concept / Approach: Mandatory disclosure relies on the belief that transparency helps consumers compare and choose. It does not require the authority to assume operators cannot comply (I) or to adopt general statements about business motives (II). Those claims are orthogonal to the transparency rationale. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Even if there is adequate time, the rule still stands; I is not necessary.2) Whether firms want to “test markets” does not negate the consumer benefit of disclosure, nor is it a prerequisite for the rule; II is not necessary.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Disclosure regimes (MRP printing, tariff publication) operate on transparency benefits alone, independent of firms’ internal motives or time complaints. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They attach unnecessary suppositions about feasibility or business preference not needed to justify a transparency mandate. Common Pitfalls: Confusing potential compliance challenges with assumptions required for a policy’s consumer-welfare logic. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement: "Despite a draconian crackdown on software pirates announced last year in country X, the country remains the world’s third-largest market for bootleg computer programs," reports a journalist. Assumptions: I. Computer piracy is declining w…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The report contrasts a strong enforcement announcement with continued, large-scale piracy. It highlights persistence, not global trends or absolutist expectations. We must see whether either proposed assumption is necessary to make sense of the observation. Given Data / Assumptions: Fact: crackdown announced last year. Outcome: country remains #3 bootleg market. I: global decline but local increase. II: draconian measures should completely eliminate piracy. Concept / Approach: Stating that a country remains a top market after a crackdown presupposes neither a world trend nor a belief in total eradication. It merely notes ineffectiveness/insufficiency relative to the objective. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Whether the rest of the world is up or down (I) is irrelevant to the country-specific persistence; not necessary.2) The journalist does not need to assume that crackdowns must fully “bring to hell” bootleggers; the point works even if crackdowns typically reduce but do not eliminate piracy. Hence II is not necessary.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Many enforcement efforts achieve partial compliance; reporting continued scale requires no assumption of zero-tolerance success expectation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They add extraneous claims: world trends (I) and absolute efficacy (II) not required for the contrast. Common Pitfalls: Reading normative expectations into descriptive reporting. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 11

Statement: "Problems with your spouse and too little time to talk things through? Online couples therapy may be for you." — an advertisement. Assumptions: I. People may have sufficient trust in online therapy to consider using it. II. Time-pressed c…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The ad promotes an online modality for relationship counseling, targeting couples short on time. Its persuasive core is feasibility and accessibility. We need to isolate the minimal assumptions that make this ad coherent. Given Data / Assumptions: Offer: online, professional, couples therapy. Audience: time-constrained couples. I: users may trust online therapy enough to try it. II: users expect results comparable to in-person therapy. Concept / Approach: Marketing a service requires at least an assumption of willingness to try (trust/acceptance). However, it does not require the stronger belief that clients expect equal outcomes to in-person therapy; the ad only suggests suitability (“may be for you”), not equivalence claims. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, the channel would not attract users; trust in online therapy is a precondition for adoption.2) Without II, the ad can still succeed if couples expect partial benefits (convenience, earlier intervention, scheduling ease) without equivalence.3) Therefore, only I is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Tele-health adoption often begins with convenience rather than parity claims; many users accept trade-offs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either omit the minimal adoption premise (I) or impose an unnecessary parity assumption (II). Common Pitfalls: Equating “suitable/accessible” with “equal outcomes.” Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 12

Statement: "If you see any street lights on during the day, or notice electricity pilferage, please inform us." — a notice by NDPL to the public. Assumptions: I. Watching TV together and using a single fan/cooler/AC will help conserve electricity. I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The notice asks citizens to report waste (street lights on during daylight) and theft (pilferage). This is a demand-side management and loss-reduction appeal. We test which assumptions are necessary for the appeal to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Request: report waste/theft to the utility. Goal: conserve resources and improve supply reliability. I: household co-use tips (watching TV together, sharing cooling) save power. II: generation is constrained; collective conservation improves reliability. Concept / Approach: The notice’s logic rests on the system-level premise that power is limited and that reducing waste/theft contributes to stable supply. Household tips (I) are not part of this notice; they may be true but are not presupposed by the request to report specific issues. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without II, asking for public vigilance would lack a system benefit rationale.2) I is extraneous; the notice focuses on reporting anomalies, not household behavior protocols.3) Hence, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Utilities worldwide solicit public reports on outages, theft, or wastage precisely because reducing non-technical/technical losses helps grid stability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I adds a different conservation mode not referenced; options including I therefore overreach. Common Pitfalls: Generalizing from conservation tips to the specific call for reporting abnormal situations. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 13

Statement: A militant group that infiltrated Indian territory kidnapped a local resident and forced him to act as a guide. Assumptions: I. Local residents have good knowledge of the terrain and routes in and around the area. II. Even under coercion,…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement describes an infiltration scenario where militants compel a local to guide them. We must deduce which assumptions make this tactic rational from their perspective. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: kidnapping a local to serve as guide. I: locals possess valuable terrain knowledge. II: coercion will still yield usable guidance. Concept / Approach: Choosing a local as a guide presupposes both relevant knowledge (I) and expected compliance under duress (II). Without I, a local offers no advantage over maps or GPS; without II, the tactic risks misdirection or refusal, making kidnapping counterproductive. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Militants believe that locals know safe paths, patrol timings, shortcuts, and natural cover—hence I.2) They also believe that coercion (threats, weapons) can compel cooperation adequate for navigation—hence II.3) Because the group acted on both beliefs by kidnapping and using the local, both assumptions are necessary for their plan to make sense. Verification / Alternative check: Historical accounts of insurgencies show coercive use of local porters/guides; effectiveness depends precisely on terrain knowledge and enforced compliance, reinforcing I and II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option that omits either I or II leaves the militants’ tactic irrational (no knowledge benefit or no expected cooperation). Common Pitfalls: Assuming coercion guarantees perfect accuracy; the assumption required is reasonable expectation of usable guidance, not certainty. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 14

Statement: Being unable to schedule adequate training sessions for the national team, country X has decided not to defend the LG Cup it won last year in city Z. Assumptions: I. Without playing several matches against major soccer-playing nations, de…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Withdrawing from a title defense due to inadequate preparation is a risk-management decision. The statement links training shortfall to the strategic choice not to compete. We must find which assumption(s) are necessary to make this reasoning coherent. Given Data / Assumptions: The team lacks adequate training sessions. Decision: do not defend the LG Cup this year. No explicit claim about the necessity of playing “several matches against major nations.” Concept / Approach: In statement–assumption items, an assumption is implicit if, without it, the decision would lose rationale. The minimal belief here is that competing while underprepared materially increases the risk of failure. Stronger specifics (like which opponents to face) are not required for the withdrawal to make sense. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The choice not to defend implies organizers believe underpreparedness lowers win probability significantly.2) This aligns with Assumption II: inadequate preparation may lead to failure.3) Assumption I is narrower and prescriptive (must play several matches vs major nations). The statement doesn’t hinge on that specific pathway; many training modalities exist. Verification / Alternative check: Even with no friendlies against top nations, a team could still prepare via camps, analysis, or domestic tune-ups. The key is overall preparedness, not that single route. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Too specific and unnecessary. Either / Both: Overstate necessity; II suffices. Neither: Denies the basic risk premise behind the withdrawal. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a recommended method of preparation with the essential assumption (that poor prep risks failure). Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement: “I want Multinational Companies (MNCs) out of the water business. I don’t mind them in road construction or other areas.” — says a community water activist. Assumptions: I. Water is fundamental to life, and communities should own or contr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker singles out water as a sector from which MNCs should be excluded, while permitting their role in other infrastructure. The distinction rests on a principle about the nature of water, not necessarily on claims about specific MNC behaviors. Given Data / Assumptions: Explicit stance: No MNC participation in “water business.” Tolerance for MNCs elsewhere (roads, etc.). Imprecise original II was repaired per Recovery-First to express a plausible meaning. Concept / Approach: To justify excluding MNCs from water but not from roads, the speaker must treat water as qualitatively different: a life-critical commons to be owned/managed by communities (Assumption I). The policy preference does not require a belief that MNCs are actively attempting hostile takeovers (Assumption II); opposition can be principled. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, the speaker’s sector-specific prohibition becomes arbitrary.2) II (MNCs “on the prowl”) is an optional justification, not a necessary one; the speaker would oppose even benign MNC interest based on the commons principle alone. Verification / Alternative check: Public-trust doctrines worldwide argue that vital resources like water require public/community stewardship independent of private actors’ intentions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option elevating II to necessity adds a contingent factual claim not required for the normative position. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a moral stance implies a specific conspiracy or market move; here the principle stands on its own. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 16

Statement: Courier companies, led by major brands, plan a 25–30% hike in courier/parcel rates after domestic airlines raised onboard courier rates by 67%. Assumptions: I. Without raising rates, the industry would suffer huge losses and might shrink …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: When upstream transport costs jump (airlines +67%), downstream logistics firms often pass through part of the cost to customers. The plan to raise courier rates assumes that doing so will offset a meaningful share of the added expense. Given Data / Assumptions: Airline onboard courier rates increased sharply. Courier firms plan a 25–30% price hike as a response. Concept / Approach: The minimum assumption behind a pass-through decision is that the increase will reimburse or adequately cushion the cost shock (Assumption II). A catastrophic scenario (huge losses/closure) is a stronger claim than necessary to justify a price adjustment, and thus not required (Assumption I). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If II were false (no reimbursement), a hike would not solve the problem; thus II is necessary.2) The industry need not be on the brink of shutdown (I) to justify a price revision; even margin pressure suffices. Verification / Alternative check: Standard cost-plus pricing relies on partial/total pass-through; closure is an extreme, not a prerequisite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either miss the core compensation logic (II) or add unnecessary drama (I). Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement: “Before you hire a domestic help, get his/her background verified through us. Your family’s safety depends on this simple step.” — City Police. Assumptions: I. Police verification of domestic help is an effective measure for preventing cr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The advisory links household safety with completing a background verification. The persuasive force depends on the effectiveness of the verification in reducing risk, not strictly on how “simple” the process is in absolute terms. Given Data / Assumptions: Police advocate background checks before hiring domestic help. They label it a “simple step.” Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to make sense, verification must be effective at screening risk (Assumption I). Calling it “simple” is rhetorical encouragement; the advice can still be justified even if the process is moderately involved, since safety benefits can outweigh convenience (hence II is not necessary). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If verification did not reduce risk, the call to action would be empty — I is necessary.2) If the process were not truly simple, it might lower compliance but does not invalidate the safety rationale — II is not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Public-safety campaigns often simplify language to increase uptake; the core assumption remains efficacy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II overstate what must be believed for the advice to be reasonable. Common Pitfalls: Confusing persuasive wording with logical necessity. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: “My life has become a burden on too many people. Jumping from a multistoreyed building will bring happiness to many. I blame no one. Please let me die peacefully.” — a 19-year-old’s suicide note. Assumptions: I. Jumping from a multistorey…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context (Content warning: self-harm): This is an academic reasoning question about implicit assumptions in a tragic statement. We analyze it purely to understand the logic, not to endorse or encourage self-harm. Helplines and professional support should be sought if anyone feels at risk. Given Data / Assumptions: The writer proposes jumping to end life. They do not compare methods beyond the mention of alternatives in the options. Concept / Approach: The minimum assumption behind choosing the act is that it is fatal (I). Relative “ease” (II) is extraneous; the statement’s logic does not require a ranking of methods, only the belief that the chosen action will achieve the intended outcome. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If jumps were not typically fatal, the plan would not fit the stated intent; I is necessary.2) Whether it is the “easiest” among methods is not asserted nor needed; II is unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: The argument does not hinge on convenience; it hinges on expected fatality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option elevating II to necessity adds a comparative dimension absent from the note. Common Pitfalls: Reading comparative claims into a statement that only indicates one intended means. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: “If we truly wish to reduce the menace of smoking, our deeds should reflect it — including our movies, which currently depict smoking far more than actual consumption among the public.” — view of Mr X. Assumptions: I. There is a strong li…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Mr X argues that to reduce smoking, cultural outputs like films must align with that goal, criticizing movies for showing more smoking than occurs in reality. The policy suggestion presumes that depictions influence behavior and that the problem is tractable through deliberate action. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: movies over-depict smoking relative to real prevalence. Prescription: align creative output with reduction goals. Concept / Approach: For the prescription to matter, two assumptions are required: (II) on-screen smoking increases population smoking (a causal influence), and (III) the smoking problem can be mitigated by purposeful efforts (including media choices). A broad, abstract “strong link” between films and behavior (I) is not strictly necessary; the required link is specifically about smoking imagery and smoking behavior, captured by II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The argument connects content (depictions) to outcomes (public smoking). That is II’s claim.2) It also assumes interventions and planning can reduce smoking — III.3) A generic “films influence behavior” (I) is broader than required; the author’s case succeeds with the specific causal channel and tractability without asserting a general influence on all behaviors. Verification / Alternative check: Even if films influenced some behaviors but not others, as long as smoking depictions specifically affect smoking uptake (II) and the problem is policy-responsive (III), the recommendation stands. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options lacking II sever the causal hinge; options lacking III negate the purpose of changing depictions. Common Pitfalls: Conflating a general media-effects thesis with the narrower, targeted effect relevant here. Final Answer: Only II and III.

Question 20

Statement: “Why are only high-profile people considered adventurous? Villagers in India, with no buses, walk barefoot for miles on dusty, untarred roads — isn’t that more adventurous than rafting or gliding?” — a person’s view. Assumptions: I. Walki…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker challenges mainstream labeling of “adventure,” contrasting elite leisure sports with arduous rural realities. The rhetorical question implies a critique of social perception, not an absolute claim about difficulty. Given Data / Assumptions: Society often brands rafting/gliding as “adventure.” Rural hardship is overlooked in such labeling. Concept / Approach: Two perception claims are required: (II) that rafting/gliding are popularly considered adventurous and (III) that walking barefoot long distances typically isn’t credited as such. The claim that the walk is a “Herculean task” (I) is a value judgment that strengthens the rhetoric but is not necessary for the critique of labeling. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without II, there is no conventional benchmark to challenge.2) Without III, the contrast collapses because villagers’ hardship would already count as adventure.3) Whether the task is objectively Herculean is not required for the argument about misperception. Verification / Alternative check: The view can stand even if the walk is “merely” strenuous; the core is perception and recognition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either omit one of the needed perception premises or add unnecessary difficulty claims. Final Answer: Only II and III.

Statement and Assumption Questions