Question 1

Statement–Assumption — “Despite strong opposition, the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill was passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.” Assumptions: I. Conversions (especially forcible) can inflame passions and trigger communal clashes. I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The news note emphasizes passage “despite strong opposition,” signaling that the subject is socially sensitive and that opposition ordinarily poses hurdles.Given Data / Assumptions:Forcible conversion is politically and socially contentious.Legislative opposition usually reduces a bill’s chances.Concept / Approach:What must be assumed for the headline to be meaningful? (a) That conversions can create communal tensions (making the bill salient), and (b) that strong opposition is an obstacle (making the “despite” clause informative). The claim that conversions “only” lead to isolation is an extreme overgeneralization not required.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I aligns with the perceived rationale for such a bill (public order concerns) and underlies the newsworthiness.2) II uses “only,” asserting isolation as the sole outcome; the report does not commit to this and does not need it.3) III explains why “despite strong opposition” is noteworthy—opposition usually hinders passage—therefore implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Headline framing conventions highlight unusual outcomes (passage in face of headwinds).Why Other Options Are Wrong:Including II adds an unnecessary absolute claim; excluding I or III erases core reasons the passage is highlighted.Common Pitfalls:Accepting “only” statements as necessary when the report is neutral.Final Answer:Only I and III

Question 2

Statement–Assumption — “Detergents should be used to clean clothes.” Assumptions: I. Detergents form lather. II. Detergents help to dislodge grease and dirt from fabric.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The recommendation to use detergents is justified if detergents actually aid cleaning performance.Given Data / Assumptions:Lather is a visual cue but not the mechanism of action.Surfactants in detergents reduce surface tension and emulsify oils/particulates.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is what must hold true for the advice to be rational. The essential property is cleaning efficacy (grease/dirt removal), not whether foam appears.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I (forms lather) is non-essential; many low-foam detergents clean effectively.2) II (dislodges grease/dirt) is essential; without it, the recommendation has no basis.Verification / Alternative check:Efficacy depends on surfactant chemistry, not foam volume.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/Either/Both/Neither either elevate a cosmetic property or ignore the functional premise.Common Pitfalls:Equating suds with cleaning power.Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement–Assumption — “Government will pay Rs 1,00,000 compensation to families of those killed in railway accidents.” Assumptions: I. The government has adequate funds to meet this compensation expense. II. This measure may reduce the number of ra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Announcing compensation is a relief/rehabilitation policy, not a safety intervention. We test which beliefs are indispensable for making such an announcement.Given Data / Assumptions:Governments can reallocate, borrow, or provision funds after the announcement.Compensation is post-event; it does not directly change accident causation.Concept / Approach:The policy does not require assuming spare funds already exist; nor does it assume the policy reduces accidents (that would be a safety-engineering claim, not a relief measure).Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is unnecessary; commitment can precede appropriation or come from contingency funds.2) II is unrelated; compensation does not improve signaling, tracks, training, or oversight.Verification / Alternative check:Many ex gratia schemes are financed later via budgetary routes; their purpose is relief, not prevention.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/II-only/Either/Both misread fiscal timing or confuse relief with safety.Common Pitfalls:Assuming every policy implies fiscal abundance or preventive impact.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 4

Statement–Assumption — “Teachers should be careful in class because some students may disturb others,” instructed the Principal. Assumptions: I. Teachers can handle such disturbances and identify the disruptive students. II. Students will welcome th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A supervisory directive is effective only if implementers can act on it. The Principal’s instruction presumes teacher capability, not student approval.Given Data / Assumptions:Goal: maintain order and learning environment.Means: teacher vigilance, classroom management, reporting.Concept / Approach:The necessary premise is that teachers can notice and address disruptions. Student “welcome” is irrelevant to the directive’s logic.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: without teacher capacity to act, the instruction is futile.2) II is not necessary: the policy does not depend on student approval.Verification / Alternative check:School rules are enforced regardless of student enthusiasm.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only captures the operative assumption; the rest add a nonessential attitudinal claim.Common Pitfalls:Conflating compliance capacity with stakeholder feelings.Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement–Assumption — “His recent investment in Company A’s shares is only a gamble.” Assumptions: I. He may incur a loss on the investment. II. He may gain from the investment.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Calling an investment “only a gamble” communicates uncertainty and material risk regarding outcomes. The speaker need not commit to a specific direction (profit or loss) but does presuppose that a sharp swing one way or the other is plausible.Given Data / Assumptions:“Gamble” = outcome is uncertain and significantly probabilistic.In a single future, he will either gain or lose (mutually exclusive realizations).Concept / Approach:Assumption items I and II are alternative possibilities. The speaker must assume that at least one of them could occur; they need not assume both simultaneously. Hence the correct pattern in such designs is “either I or II is implicit.”Step-by-Step Solution:1) If loss were impossible, “gamble” would be odd.2) If gain were impossible, calling it a “gamble” also misleads.3) The statement requires that one of the two is a real possibility, not that both must be asserted together.Verification / Alternative check:Risk language typically signals a spread of outcomes without committing to direction.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/II-only force a direction; Both treats them as jointly necessary; Neither denies uncertainty altogether.Common Pitfalls:Thinking “gamble” asserts both outcomes together rather than alternative possibilities.Final Answer:if either I or II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement–Assumption — “Nobody can predict how long our country will take to contain disastrous terrorist activities.” Assumptions: I. It is impossible to end terrorist activities. II. Efforts to control or contain terrorist activities are in progre…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement is about uncertainty over the timeframe for containment, not about impossibility of success.Given Data / Assumptions:Containment is a policy goal under active consideration.Efforts (operations, policies, negotiations) are being made or expected soon.Concept / Approach:To talk meaningfully about “how long” implies a process underway or contemplated. It does not assume impossibility; it highlights unpredictability.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assumption I (impossible to end) is stronger than needed and contradicts the notion of measuring time to contain.2) Assumption II (efforts are on) is necessary; otherwise, asking “how long” would be misplaced.Verification / Alternative check:Project planning often discusses timelines precisely when work is ongoing but uncertain.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/Either/Both/Neither either import fatalism or deny the ongoing process premise.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “cannot predict” with “cannot achieve.”Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 7

Statement–Assumption — “Why don’t you go to court if the employer does not pay your Provident Fund (PF) contribution?” Assumptions: I. Courts can intervene in employer–employee disputes of this nature. II. Employers are obligated to pay the statutor…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The advice to pursue legal remedy presupposes both the court’s jurisdiction and the existence of a violated obligation.Given Data / Assumptions:PF is a statutory social-security contribution with employer liability under applicable law.Courts (or tribunals) can adjudicate non-payment disputes and grant relief.Concept / Approach:Legal action is sensible only if (a) a duty exists, and (b) a forum can enforce it. Both premises are required for the suggestion to be rational.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Without I, suggesting court action would be pointless (no jurisdiction).2) Without II, there is no breach to complain of, making court action baseless.3) Therefore both I and II are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Most statutory contribution disputes are explicitly triable by designated forums.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/II-only/Either/Neither omit part of the legal-viability foundation.Common Pitfalls:Assuming “go to court” requires only jurisdiction or only duty; in practice, it presumes both.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 8

Statement–Assumption — “Vitamin E tablets improve circulation and keep your complexion in a glowing condition.” — an advertisement Assumptions: I. People value and desire a glowing complexion. II. Complexion becomes dull in the absence of proper cir…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item tests the concept of an implicit assumption in persuasive claims. An advertisement claims that Vitamin E tablets “improve circulation” and therefore “keep your complexion glowing.” We must detect which background beliefs must be true for the persuasion to make sense to the target audience.Given Data / Assumptions:The ad asserts two things: (a) product effect on circulation; (b) desired outcome: glowing complexion.Ads are crafted to motivate purchase by appealing to consumer desires.The statement does not present medical proof; it relies on appealing goals.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is a belief the speaker expects the audience to accept without being stated. For a beauty-related product, the core motivation assumed is that people aspire to have a glowing complexion. Without that desire, the claim would not be persuasive. By contrast, the ad does not need to assume a rigid causal law such as “complexion becomes dull in the absence of circulation.” It merely suggests improvement in circulation correlates with improved complexion; the absolute claim in II is stronger than required.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test I: If people did not care about complexion, the ad’s promise would fall flat. Therefore I is necessary and implicit.2) Test II: “Complexion becomes dull in the absence of circulation” is an extreme and technically awkward claim (total absence of circulation is incompatible with life). The ad only needs the milder notion that improving circulation can benefit complexion. Hence II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Most cosmetic/beauty ads bank on the audience’s desire for a particular appearance outcome; they rarely require categorical physiological assertions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I & II together (or either) over-commit to II; neither denies the obvious motivational premise.Common Pitfalls:Confusing a helpful correlation (“may improve”) with an absolute cause (“must be dull otherwise”).Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 9

Statement–Assumption — “The management of XYZ Pvt. Ltd. asked the workers’ union to call off the strike immediately; otherwise the management would be forced to close down the factory.” Assumptions: I. No alternative other than closing the factory i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The management issues an ultimatum linking the continuation of a strike to potential factory closure. We must identify the minimal beliefs necessary for this communication to be rational.Given Data / Assumptions:A strike is ongoing; production is affected.Management threatens closure as leverage.No details are given about finances, alternatives, or negotiations.Concept / Approach:A threat functions as a strategic signal intended to alter the other party’s behavior. For it to be meaningful, the speaker must assume the threat has some chance of changing the union’s calculus. However, management does not need to believe there are literally “no alternatives.” It may still have other options (e.g., mediation, partial operations, temporary shutdown) and yet choose to escalate rhetorically.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assumption I claims impossibility of all alternative solutions. The statement does not assert or require such an absolute. Threats are often bargaining devices even when options exist.2) Assumption II is essential: without believing the threat could move the union, issuing it would be pointless. Thus II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negotiation theory treats credible threats as attempts to shift payoffs. Credibility can be partial but still potentially effective.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/Both/Either/Neither either impose an unnecessary absolute (I) or deny the persuasive intent (II).Common Pitfalls:Reading an ultimatum as proof of helplessness rather than as a negotiation tactic.Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement–Assumption — “I have not received telephone bills for nine months in spite of several complaints,” writes a telephone customer to a daily. Assumptions: I. Every customer has a right to receive bills regularly from the telephone company. II…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A customer publicly complains about not receiving bills for nine months despite lodging complaints. The letter aims to prompt redress. Which premises are necessary?Given Data / Assumptions:Telephone services are billed periodically and documented.Consumers rely on timely bills to track dues and avoid penalties/disconnection.Escalation to media implies a belief that service lapses should be corrected.Concept / Approach:For the grievance to be meaningful, two beliefs must hold: (a) customers are entitled to regular billing (a service standard), and (b) pointing out defects through complaints is a path toward correction. Without I, the complaint lacks normative force; without II, complaining would be futile.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Regular billing is a basic utility obligation; the complainant’s indignation presupposes this right. Necessary and implicit.2) II: By publicizing repeated complaints, the customer expects corrective action. Thus II is also implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Consumer-protection norms treat timely billing as a service standard, and complaint mechanisms exist precisely to rectify lapses.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one assumption omits the other indispensable premise; “neither” would deny the basis for the letter.Common Pitfalls:Assuming the letter merely vents frustration; it also calls for rectification, hence II.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 11

Statement–Assumption — “This year most shops and department stores are offering prizes and discounts on purchases to attract customers.” Assumptions: I. Shops have earned so much profit that they now share it with customers. II. Goods are available …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Retailers announce incentives “to attract customers.” We must identify the assumption that makes this marketing move rational.Given Data / Assumptions:Promotions are demand-stimulating tools (price cuts, freebies, sweepstakes).Retailers deploy promotions when facing sluggish footfall, inventory buildup, or competition.No claim is made about past profitability.Concept / Approach:If stores give discounts “to attract customers,” the implicit belief is that sales volume is insufficient relative to targets or stock, and price/value incentives can improve throughput. The notion that they are doing this because they “earned a lot of profit” is speculative and unnecessary; promotions often occur in lean periods or competitive wars.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test I: High profits leading to sharing is not required; it is neither stated nor typical of discount cycles aimed at volume.2) Test II: Assuming slack demand or the need to stimulate sales directly supports the stated purpose “to attract customers.” Hence II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Retail economics: promotions increase price elasticity, clear inventory, and draw traffic in competitive markets.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only/Both/Either force an unnecessary profit-sharing narrative; “neither” denies the marketing logic.Common Pitfalls:Equating “discounts” with “surplus profit” rather than “need to move goods or defend share.”Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 12

Statement–Assumption — “Provide mid-day meals to children in primary schools to increase attendance.” Assumptions: I. Offering mid-day meals will attract children to attend school more regularly. II. Children who are otherwise deprived of good food …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy objective is explicit: increase attendance by providing mid-day meals. We must decide which background belief is necessary for this policy instrument to be sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:Mid-day meals are an incentive tied to schooling.Attendance rises when direct benefits reduce opportunity costs (hunger, work, sibling care).The statement does not stipulate nutritional deprivation for all targeted children.Concept / Approach:The minimal necessary premise is that the incentive (a meal) positively influences attendance decisions (I). The additional claim that the beneficiaries are specifically “otherwise deprived of good food” (II) may often be true, but the policy’s logic does not require it; attendance can rise due to convenience, parental assurance, or community norms irrespective of prior deprivation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: without believing meals attract children to school, the proposal would not target attendance.2) II is not necessary to the logic. The attendance effect can operate broadly, not only among nutritionally deprived children.Verification / Alternative check:Public policy evaluations often show incentive effects across heterogeneous households, not just the most deprived.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only/Either/Both over-specify the beneficiary profile; “neither” would deny the incentive mechanism.Common Pitfalls:Assuming targeted deprivation is a necessary premise for any welfare-linked attendance program.Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 13

Statement–Assumption — “Traffic jams on most city roads have become a regular feature during monsoon.” Assumptions: I. Materials used for road construction often fail under monsoon stress, creating potholes that slow traffic. II. The number of vehic…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The phenomenon described is seasonal: jams become a “regular feature” during monsoon. We must identify the necessary underlying cause implicitly relied upon by the statement.Given Data / Assumptions:Monsoon brings heavy rainfall causing surface damage, waterlogging, and reduced visibility.Road failure (potholes, rutting) slows traffic and increases congestion.Vehicle counts typically do not spike in monsoon; if anything, discretionary travel may reduce.Concept / Approach:A seasonal spike in congestion suggests a seasonal degradation in road conditions or traffic flow dynamics, not necessarily an increase in the number of vehicles. Therefore, the implicit assumption is about infrastructure performance under monsoon conditions (I), not a rise in fleet size (II).Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: If road integrity declines due to rain, jams becoming “regular” is explained. This is necessary and implicit.2) II: Claiming more vehicles in monsoon is neither typical nor necessary; congestion can worsen with the same or fewer vehicles if capacity drops. Hence II is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Basic traffic theory: When effective road capacity decreases (e.g., lanes narrowed by water/potholes), congestion rises even at unchanged demand.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only/Both/Either attribute cause to demand rather than the seasonal supply (capacity) shock indicated by monsoon effects.Common Pitfalls:Assuming “more vehicles” explains all congestion; capacity constraints can be decisive.Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 14

Statement–Assumption — Notice: “Private property — trespassers will be prosecuted.” Assumptions: I. Passers-by may read the notice and refrain from trespassing. II. People are deterred by the prospect of prosecution.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A warning sign is a preventive tool. We evaluate which assumptions must hold for such signage to serve its purpose.Given Data / Assumptions:The notice communicates ownership and legal consequences of unlawful entry.Signs work only if people can perceive (read/understand) them and are motivated to comply.Concept / Approach:The sign’s effectiveness relies on two premises: (a) that potential intruders will see and process the message (I), and (b) that the threat of legal action creates sufficient deterrence (II). If either premise fails, the sign loses much of its preventive value.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: posting a notice presumes it will be read and will influence behavior.2) II is implicit: specifying prosecution aims to instill fear of legal penalties as a deterrent.Verification / Alternative check:Security best practices combine signaling (signs) and enforcement (guards/cameras); signaling presupposes perception and deterrence.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Selecting only one omits the dual foundation of signage (communication + deterrent value); “neither” denies the point of posting the notice.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that signs alone ensure compliance without recognizing the assumed psychological effect.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement–Assumption — “If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination.” Assumptions: I. To pass the examination, he must be intelligent (intelligence is necessary). II. He will, in fact, pass the examination.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a logic item. The statement is a conditional (If P then Q). We must avoid reading additional claims into it.Given Data / Assumptions:P: He is intelligent. Q: He will pass.The speaker asserts a sufficient condition, not a necessary one.No claim is made about whether P is true, or whether Q holds independently.Concept / Approach:For “If P then Q,” it is not assumed that Q requires P (necessity), nor that P actually holds, nor that Q will occur. The statement only sets a rule: whenever P holds, Q follows. Therefore neither I (which converts sufficiency into necessity) nor II (which affirms the consequent without basis) is required.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I claims intelligence is necessary to pass. The original statement does not assert that; non-intelligent candidates might pass via other means (hard work, coaching, luck). Hence I is not implicit.2) II asserts the outcome Q, but the antecedent P may or may not be true. The conditional does not guarantee Q in the absence of P, so II is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Logical form: P → Q does not entail Q, nor Q → P, nor ¬P → ¬Q. The statement merely states sufficiency.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option endorsing I or II reads more than the conditional provides.Common Pitfalls:Confusing necessary with sufficient conditions; affirming the consequent.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 16

Statement–Assumption — “The government has decided to disinvest a large chunk of its equity in select public sector undertakings (PSUs) for better fiscal management.” Assumptions: I. Proceeds from disinvestment may substantially reduce the mounting …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Disinvestment is proposed as a tool for “better fiscal management,” typically to raise non-tax revenue and improve fiscal indicators. We must isolate the necessary premises.Given Data / Assumptions:Government plans to sell equity stakes.Objectives include revenue generation and fiscal correction.Successful sale requires willing buyers at viable prices.Concept / Approach:The policy logic depends on two pillars: (a) that sale proceeds can help reduce fiscal pressure (deficit or debt metrics), and (b) that there is sufficient investor demand to realize those proceeds. If either premise fails, the stated purpose (better fiscal management via disinvestment) would not be met.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: without deficit impact, calling it “better fiscal management” would be hollow.2) II is implicit: absent market demand, the plan would not raise meaningful revenue, undermining the approach.Verification / Alternative check:Privatization/disinvestment programs globally hinge on market absorption and pricing to achieve fiscal outcomes.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only or II-only omit a critical dependency; “neither” contradicts the rationale of the move.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring market conditions as a constraint on fiscal strategy efficacy.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement–Assumption — Advertisement: “Use our product to improve your child’s memory. It is based on natural herbs and has no harmful side effects.” Assumptions: I. People prefer medical products that are useful and free from harmful side effects. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The advertisement uses two appeal levers: effectiveness (improves memory) and safety (no harmful side effects; natural herbs). We must determine which audience beliefs are presupposed by this pitch.Given Data / Assumptions:Parents make health and learning choices for children.Safety is a salient attribute for pediatric products.Academic performance and cognitive development are valued by many families.Concept / Approach:For the message to persuade, the advertiser relies on (a) consumers’ preference for safe, side-effect-free products (I), and (b) parental motivation to enhance children’s memory (II). Without I, the “no harmful side effects” claim carries no persuasive weight; without II, the core benefit (memory improvement) would not motivate purchase.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assumption I is implicit: the ad foregrounds safety to align with consumer preferences.2) Assumption II is implicit: the value proposition targets an outcome (better memory) that parents desire for children.Verification / Alternative check:Health-product advertising consistently emphasizes efficacy plus safety precisely because audiences care about both.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one assumption ignores the dual-appeal structure; “neither” rejects the obvious consumer psychology being leveraged.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking that ads make multiple simultaneous assumptions about consumer motives.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 18

Statement–Assumption — “If it is easy to become an engineer, I do not want to be an engineer.” Assumptions: I) An individual aspires to be a professional. II) People desire achievements that are hard earned. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker rejects the goal of becoming an engineer purely on the ground that it is “easy.” This is a classic statement–assumption task that probes the value system implied by a preference: choosing goals based on their difficulty rather than the profession’s intrinsic nature.Given Data / Assumptions:The decision criterion stated is “ease.”Nothing else is said about engineering or other jobs.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption must be necessary for the statement to have force. The statement only makes sense if the speaker values accomplishments that are difficult to obtain (hard earned). It does not require any general claim that “an individual aspires to be a professional.” The speaker could, for example, aspire to art or entrepreneurship; professionalism in general is irrelevant to the reasoning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the operative criterion: difficulty level of attainment.2) Map that to a minimal belief: hard-earned goals are more desirable (Assumption II).3) Reject Assumption I as not required for the preference expressed.Verification / Alternative check:If the speaker did not value difficulty, the ease of becoming an engineer would not be a reason to reject it.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Assumption I adds an unrelated generalization; “either/neither” fail to capture the explicit value premise.Common Pitfalls:Reading “professional” as synonymous with “engineer”; it is not part of the logic.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 19

Statement–Assumption — “Kartik left for Delhi on Tuesday by train to attend a function on Friday at his uncle’s house.” Assumptions: I) Kartik may reach Delhi on Wednesday. II) Kartik may reach Delhi before Friday. Choose the implicit assumption(s).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A plan to attend a Friday function drives the travel timing. We examine which minimal beliefs are required for the plan to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Kartik departs Tuesday by train.The function is on Friday.Concept / Approach:For the travel decision to be rational, Kartik must believe he can arrive before the function—i.e., before Friday or at least by Friday. The exact day of arrival (e.g., Wednesday) is merely one possibility and is not necessary to justify the decision.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the goal constraint: arrival before the event.2) Assumption II reflects that necessity.3) Assumption I is a specific scenario, not required by the statement.Verification / Alternative check:Even if arrival were Thursday, the plan is still coherent; thus II is required, I is not.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” over-specifies; “either/neither” miss the minimal arrival-before-event premise.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “may reach Wednesday” (a possibility) with a necessary assumption.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 20

Statement–Assumption — “Residents are advised to use mosquito repellents or sleep under nets as many people are suffering from malaria.” — Civic authority advisory Assumptions: I) Local residents can afford repellents or nets. II) Some people may ig…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public-health advisories typically presume citizens can act on the suggested measures. Here, the measures (repellents/nets) have a cost component.Given Data / Assumptions:Action required: procure or use repellents/nets.Purpose: reduce malaria exposure.Concept / Approach:The advisory is meaningful only if residents are in a position to follow it—i.e., affordability/availability exist (Assumption I). A conjecture that people “may ignore” due to other needs (Assumption II) is not necessary for issuing the advisory; authorities do not need to assume non-compliance to recommend best practices.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link feasibility of recommended action to affordability (I).2) Recognize II as speculative and not required by the logic of advising.Verification / Alternative check:If residents could not afford nets/repellents at all, a different advisory (e.g., community fogging) would be expected.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing II alone or “either” introduces unnecessary speculation; “neither” ignores feasibility.Common Pitfalls:Equating “some will ignore” (empirical) with an assumption needed to issue advice (logical).Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter