Question 1

Statement — Please send an official letter rather than a semi-official letter on this subject this time.  Assumptions — I. The format and emphasis of different types of letters are different (official vs. semi-official). II. It is possible to send d…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The instruction specifies the type of communication to be used “this time,” implying that letter types differ materially and that the same subject can be handled through alternative formats depending on the situation. This presupposes a recognized difference in formality, tone, or legal weight between “official” and “semi-official,” and that the sender has discretion to choose the appropriate type for the present need. Given Data / Assumptions: Request: use an official letter now, not a semi-official one. I: official and semi-official letters differ in format/emphasis/authority. II: multiple letter types can address the same subject in different instances. Concept / Approach: Without I, the instruction would be pointless because the two formats would be indistinguishable. Without II, the phrase “this time” would be odd, as it implies variation across occasions. Hence both are required. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Parse “this time” as evidence of alternate treatments of the same subject.2) Recognize that the formats differ (I).3) Recognize discretionary choice across occasions (II). Verification / Alternative check: If formats did not differ or alternatives were not allowed, the instruction would be redundant or impossible, confirming both assumptions are needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete rationale.Neither: contradicts the language of the instruction. Common Pitfalls: Missing the significance of “this time” as a cue for II. Final Answer: Both Assumption I and II are implicit.

Question 2

Statement — Please check the availability of two tickets from Delhi to Lucknow.  Assumptions — I. The person checking knows the desired mode of travel (e.g., train, flight, or bus) and relevant date/time context. II. The person checking knows the pe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Availability queries require an understood context: the transport mode and usually the intended date/time window. Without that, “check availability” is underspecified. In contrast, traveler personal details are not needed merely to check availability; they become necessary at the booking/issuance stage, not at the initial query stage. Given Data / Assumptions: Request: verify availability of two tickets Delhi → Lucknow. I: mode/date/time context is known to the checker. II: traveler identity details are known (name/age/ID). Concept / Approach: The minimal assumption for a meaningful search is clarity on mode and schedule parameters (I). Traveler details (II) are not required until booking is attempted. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify inputs needed for an availability search: route + mode + date/time.2) Conclude that I must hold.3) Recognize that II pertains to booking, not availability; thus it is not required. Verification / Alternative check: Any search engine or counter can show open seats without traveler details; booking requires them later. This confirms I only. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both: misunderstand what “check availability” entails.Neither: false because some mode/date context must be shared. Common Pitfalls: Assuming personal details are always necessary even for preliminary inquiries. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 3

Statement — Take a ferry or a boat instead of a bus to reach the Kravi island faster.  Assumptions — I. Because the island is remote, it is not easily accessible. II. Ferries and boats are available to travel to the Kravi island.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The advice recommends a mode switch (water transport over road) to save time. For this to be meaningful, water transport must actually be available and capable of serving the route. The statement does not require any claim that the island is generally “not easily accessible”; it only compares relative speed between two modes given availability. Given Data / Assumptions: Advice: choose ferry/boat instead of bus to reach faster. I: claim of remoteness and general inaccessibility. II: existence and operability of ferries/boats to Kravi. Concept / Approach: To be actionable, the recommendation presupposes that ferries/boats run to the destination (II). Remoteness (I) is not necessary; even accessible islands can be reached faster by water than by road detours. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the comparative claim: ferry/boat faster than bus.2) Minimal requirement: water services exist (II).3) Remoteness (I) is irrelevant to the speed comparison. Verification / Alternative check: If no ferry existed, the advice would be impossible to follow, making II essential. Whether the island is remote has no bearing on the comparative speed if both modes exist. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Either/Both: improperly treat remoteness as necessary.Neither: incorrect because availability (II) must hold. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “faster” with “only feasible.” The statement is about speed, not overall accessibility. Final Answer: Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 4

Statement — “Give adequate job-related training to the employees before assigning them full-fledged work.” Assumptions: I. Training helps in boosting the performance of employees. II. Employees possess no skill sets before training is provided.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In Statement–Assumption problems, we test which hidden beliefs must be true for the statement to make sense. Here, a manager recommends giving adequate, job-related training before assigning full responsibilities. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Provide adequate job-related training before full-fledged work. Assumption I: Training improves or boosts employee performance. Assumption II: Employees have no skills before training. Concept / Approach: The recommendation is rational only if training is expected to improve outcomes (productivity, quality, safety). It does not require the extreme claim that employees have zero skills pre-training; even skilled hires benefit from role-specific training. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the purpose of training: reduce errors, standardize methods, speed up ramp-up.2) If training did not help performance, the advice would be pointless → I is necessary.3) The statement does not assert that employees are skill-less; it only insists on adequacy and job relevance → II is unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose new employees already have baseline skills but lack firm-specific process knowledge. Training still makes sense. Hence the policy does not rely on II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: too strong and not needed. Either: I and II are not interchangeable. Both: overstates the requirement. Neither: would make the directive irrational. Common Pitfalls: Equating “needs training” with “has no skills.” Most roles require contextual training even for experienced hires. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement — “To save the environment, enforce a total ban on illegal mining throughout the country.” Assumptions: I. Mining conducted legally does not cause any harm to the environment. II. Mining is one of the factors responsible for environmental …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The proposal targets illegal mining as an environmental threat. The minimal belief is that mining (especially when illegal and unregulated) contributes to environmental harm. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Total ban on illegal mining to protect the environment. Assumption I: Legal mining is harmless. Assumption II: Mining is a contributor to environmental degradation. Concept / Approach: To justify banning illegal mining for environmental reasons, it must be assumed that mining causes harm (II). The statement does not need to claim that legal mining is harmless (I); legal mining might still have impacts but be regulated to mitigate them. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Link problem to cause: environmental harm ← illegal mining.2) Necessity: mining contributes to harm → II must hold.3) No need to assert zero harm from legal mining → I is not required. Verification / Alternative check: Even if legal mining has some impact, curbing illegal operations can still reduce total damage, so the policy retains meaning without I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Either/Both: add an unnecessary claim. Neither: denies the causal premise. Common Pitfalls: Reading “ban illegal” as “legal is harmless.” The statement is narrower. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement — “The government has decided to run all commercial vehicles on bio-fuels to save depleting fossil-fuel reserves.” Assumptions: I. It is possible to switch over from fossil fuels to bio-fuels for vehicles. II. Sufficient quantities of bio-…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A decision to operate all commercial vehicles on bio-fuels requires feasibility on two fronts: technical switch-over and adequate supply. Without both, the decision would be impractical. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Run all commercial vehicles on bio-fuels. Assumption I: Technical/operational switch from fossil to bio-fuels is possible. Assumption II: The country can produce (or reliably source) enough bio-fuel for all such vehicles. Concept / Approach: For a universal policy across commercial fleets, capability (I) and capacity (II) are both necessary conditions. If either fails, the policy cannot be implemented at scale. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Feasibility test: engine compatibility, distribution, standards → I.2) Supply test: sustainable production/availability at required volume → II.3) Since the decision is universal (“all”), both I and II must hold. Verification / Alternative check: Even with compatible technology, lack of fuel volume would doom the plan; conversely, abundant fuel without technical switch-over pathways is useless. Hence both are necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: each omits a necessary leg. Neither: contradicts the policy’s possibility. Common Pitfalls: Confusing pilot feasibility with nationwide scalability. The statement targets nationwide commercial fleets. Final Answer: Both assumptions I and II are implicit.

Question 7

Statement — “Banks should always check a client’s financial status before lending money.” Assumptions: I. Checking before lending gives a sufficiently true picture of the client’s financial status. II. Clients sometimes may not present the correct p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Prudent lending policies rely on information quality and on guarding against misrepresentation. A directive to “always check” presupposes that checking is informative and that self-reports can be unreliable. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Always verify the client’s financial status. Assumption I: Verification reveals a true or truer picture. Assumption II: Clients may sometimes misstate their repayment ability. Concept / Approach: If checks did not improve knowledge (I) or if clients’ disclosures were always accurate (II false), the “always check” rule would be unnecessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Necessity of I: Without informational gain, checks waste resources.2) Necessity of II: If clients never misrepresented, mandatory checks would be redundant. Verification / Alternative check: Asymmetric information and adverse selection in credit markets justify both assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: each omits part of the rationale. Neither: contradicts prudent banking. Common Pitfalls: Assuming checks are mere formality; they exist to mitigate risk. Final Answer: Both assumptions I and II are implicit.

Question 8

Statement — “Let there be a signboard indicating directions and instructions.” Assumptions: I. A signboard can be prepared without using any language. II. A signboard is the only effective tool to indicate directions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The recommendation is to install a signboard to communicate directions and instructions. We test whether the statement commits to “language-free” communication or to exclusivity of signboards over other tools. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Put up a signboard for directions/instructions. Assumption I: Signboards can be prepared without any language. Assumption II: Signboards are the only effective way to indicate directions. Concept / Approach: The statement merely selects a medium (a signboard). It does not require that the board be language-free; it could use text, icons, or both. Nor does it claim exclusivity; maps, announcements, and digital displays can also work. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test I: The statement works whether the board uses text or pictograms; language-freeness is not necessary.2) Test II: The statement does not deny other effective media; it simply recommends one. Verification / Alternative check: Even if multiple tools exist, installing a signboard can still be sensible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both introduce constraints not required by the recommendation. Common Pitfalls: Over-reading exclusivity or special format where none is stated. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 9

Statement — “To build more usable space, extra FSI (Floor Space Index) needs to be brought/obtained.” Assumptions: I. The person addressed does not know the meaning of FSI. II. More space will reduce the construction cost.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence links the goal (more usable space) with the means (extra FSI). We must test whether it presupposes ignorance of the term FSI or a claim about cost reduction. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: To get more built-up area, obtain higher FSI. Assumption I: Listener does not know what FSI means. Assumption II: More space will reduce construction cost. Concept / Approach: Neither is necessary. The advice stands regardless of the listener’s prior knowledge (the term can be used among professionals), and cost may rise with more space; the statement is about feasibility, not cost savings. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I not required: expertise of the listener is irrelevant to the logic.2) II not required: cost behavior is not asserted; often more area increases absolute cost. Verification / Alternative check: Whether or not the person knows FSI, getting more FSI remains the structural route to more buildable area. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option claiming I or II adds unnecessary or incorrect content. Common Pitfalls: Assuming every instruction implies ignorance or a cost claim; here it merely states a planning precondition. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement — “If you want to increase your writing speed, use a 0.7 pen.” Assumptions: I. Different types of pens are available. II. The person being advised understands what a 0.7 pen is.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a recommendation connecting a goal (higher writing speed) to a tool choice (0.7 pen, i.e., 0.7 mm tip). We test which background beliefs are essential for the advice to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Use a 0.7 pen to write faster. Assumption I: There exist different pen types (tip sizes/inks) to choose from. Assumption II: The listener already understands what “0.7 pen” means. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to make sense, a choice set among pen types must exist (I). However, advice can be given even if the listener does not yet know the term “0.7”; clarification can follow. Hence II is not necessary to utter the recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Diversity of pens underpins the comparative recommendation → I necessary.2) Comprehension of the jargon is not a precondition to giving the advice → II unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the listener asks “what is 0.7?”, the statement remains a coherent piece of advice that can be explained further. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both: over-commit. Neither: would make the comparative advice baseless. Common Pitfalls: Assuming understood jargon is always presupposed; recommendations often introduce new terms. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions