Question 1

Statement–Assumption — “There is concern about the health of the arrested VIPs but not about the harm they have done to the nation’s health,” says a journalist. Assumptions: I. VIPs are not more important than the nation. II. The practice of showing…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker criticizes media/public focus on VIPs’ personal health while ignoring national harm. We must infer the necessary value-priority premise.Given Data / Assumptions:The contrast implies a hierarchy: national interest outweighs VIP comfort.No explicit call is made to stop all concern for VIPs’ health.Concept / Approach:For the criticism to carry force, the speaker must assume that the nation’s well-being is paramount—this is Assumption I. Assumption II goes further, proposing an absolute cessation of concern for VIP health; the statement does not require such an extreme remedy, only a rebalancing of attention and accountability.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: without the priority of national interest, the critique would lack its moral basis.2) II is not implicit: re-prioritization does not equal abolition of concern.Verification / Alternative check:Public-interest commentary commonly asserts relative priorities rather than absolute prohibitions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only misreads the statement as abolitionist; both/either overstate; neither denies the evident priority premise.Common Pitfalls:Treating criticism of imbalance as a call for total negation.Final Answer:if only Assumption I is implicit

Question 2

Statement–Assumption — “The company has decided to increase the price of all its products to tackle its precarious financial position.” Assumptions: I. The decision may wipe out all previously incurred losses. II. Buyers may continue to purchase eve…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The firm opts for a uniform price hike to improve finances. We must identify the minimum beliefs necessary for this strategy to plausibly help.Given Data / Assumptions:Revenue = price * quantity; margins depend on cost structure and demand elasticity.Price hikes risk demand loss; success requires sustained purchases.Concept / Approach:The critical assumption is II: that demand will persist sufficiently post-hike so that revenue/margins improve. Assumption I (wipe out entire past losses) is far stronger than required; a price rise aims to improve cash flow/viability, not necessarily to erase all historical losses. Assumption III (enough resources for a few months) is irrelevant to the decision to raise prices; pricing can change immediately and does not need a buffer to be rational.Step-by-Step Solution:1) II is necessary because if buyers stop purchasing, the hike would worsen finances.2) I is unnecessary overreach; III is not tied to price-change feasibility.Verification / Alternative check:Managerial pricing decisions hinge on elasticity and competitive response, not on guarantees of total loss recovery.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“II and III” adds an unneeded premise; “I and II” includes an excessive claim; “None” ignores the demand-continuity necessity; “All” overstates.Common Pitfalls:Assuming strategic pricing must guarantee complete historical recovery.Final Answer:Only II is implicit

Question 3

Statement–Assumption — “The State Government has unilaterally increased octroi by 5% on all commodities entering the state without seeking Central Government approval.” Assumptions: I. The State Government may be able to implement/enforce its decisi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The state announces a unilateral octroi increase. We must infer which premises make this action sensible in an intergovernmental fiscal setting.Given Data / Assumptions:Octroi is a revenue instrument on goods entering a jurisdiction.Intergovernmental frictions may arise; central concurrence can matter (policy/legal harmony).Any hike is typically motivated by revenue needs.Concept / Approach:Two practical premises commonly underlie such moves: anticipated revenue gains (III) and an expectation—if not of prior approval—at least of eventual acquiescence or non-interference from the Centre (II), to avoid legal/political reversal. Assumption I (ability to implement) may be pragmatically true but is not strictly necessary as an assumption for the announcement; the very act of announcing represents the intent to implement, while the real strategic uncertainties concern central stance and revenue outcomes.Step-by-Step Solution:1) III is integral—without revenue uplift, the policy lacks fiscal rationale.2) II is reasonably implicit—states anticipate the Centre’s tolerance or support to avoid conflict.3) I, while plausible, is not the hidden premise at issue beyond the self-evident act of announcing; the decision’s success hinges more on II and III.Verification / Alternative check:Fiscal policy shifts usually rest on revenue expectations and higher-level alignment to sustain them.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“I and II” omits the core fiscal motive; “None” ignores obvious revenue expectation; “All” overstates by requiring I; “I and III” ignores Centre dynamics.Common Pitfalls:Treating the mere ability to implement as the key hidden premise rather than revenue/oversight dynamics.Final Answer:II and III are implicit

Question 4

Statement–Assumption — “Feelings of mutual respect among communities are the ultimate safeguard. Once that respect goes, no Constitution can substitute for it.” Assumptions: I. Mutual respect is a social virtue that a Constitution cannot itself manu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement contrasts organic social virtues (mutual respect) with formal legal frameworks (Constitution). It claims that law cannot replace lost civic goodwill. We must detect the necessary premises.Given Data / Assumptions:Civic harmony arises from attitudes and norms, not only statutes.Legal texts can set rights/obligations but cannot alone produce interpersonal respect.Concept / Approach:Bearing the claim “no Constitution can substitute,” two assumptions are embedded: (I) the virtue in question is not something a Constitution can directly create; (II) therefore, expecting law alone to ensure goodwill is unrealistic. Both are necessary to sustain the contrast and the normative warning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: if law could itself generate the virtue, substitution would be possible.2) II is implicit: the statement denies legal sufficiency for social harmony absent respect.Verification / Alternative check:Political theory distinguishes “law on the books” from “norms in practice”; the latter require culture, education, and leadership beyond constitutions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Picking only one weakens the contrast; “neither” contradicts the statement’s core message.Common Pitfalls:Assuming enforceability equals social internalization of values.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 5

Statement–Assumption — “With today’s calls to revise the Constitution, we must ask whether the Constitution has failed us, or we have failed the Constitution.” Assumptions: I. Merely revising the Constitution will not help unless people are willing …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement contrasts structural change (constitutional revision) with behavioral/institutional failure (citizens and leaders not living up to it). It invites self-scrutiny before amending the text.Given Data / Assumptions:Calls for revision exist, implying dissatisfaction.Outcomes depend on compliance and governance, not only on written provisions.Concept / Approach:For the caution to be meaningful, two premises are required: (I) that revision is insufficient without obedience and spirit-of-law adherence; (II) that something is indeed amiss (governance/compliance), hence the question “who failed whom?” Both premises are necessary to motivate reflection over mere textual tinkering.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: otherwise, revision would be the obvious cure without debate.2) II is implicit: without acknowledging problems, the dilemma would be pointless.Verification / Alternative check:Institutional performance rests on design and adherence; many reforms fail when norms lag.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one premise undercuts the argument’s balance; “neither” contradicts the explicit dilemma.Common Pitfalls:Assuming text changes alone can substitute for institutional will.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement–Assumption — Notice in a sweet shop: “While weighing sweets, we do not include the weight of the box used to carry the sweets.” Assumptions: I. The cost price of a box is not less than the cost of sweets per gram. II. Customers prefer to p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The notice clarifies pricing fairness: pay for sweets, not packaging. We must spot the required customer-belief premise.Given Data / Assumptions:Sweets are sold by weight; boxes add tare weight.Fair practice removes tare from net weight billed.Concept / Approach:For the notice to matter, the shop presumes customers value and expect being charged only for edible content (II). Assumption I about relative cost prices is irrelevant; even if boxes are cheap, fairness still dictates tare exclusion. The practice is anchored in consumer preference for transparent weighing, not in comparative cost metrics.Step-by-Step Solution:1) II is necessary—otherwise, the notice would not reassure or influence customer satisfaction.2) I is unnecessary—box cost vs sweet cost does not determine the weighing policy.Verification / Alternative check:Retail weighing standards (net vs gross) emphasize consumer fairness over component cost comparisons.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only and both import an irrelevant premise; “neither” ignores the fairness expectation.Common Pitfalls:Confusing pricing ethics (net weight) with cost accounting of packaging.Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 7

Statement–Assumption — Mr. X to Mr. Y: “If you wish to purchase a car, you should buy a Mercedes only, because the least number of cars stolen each year are Mercedes.” Assumptions: I. People who wish to purchase a car are financially capable of buyi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Mr. X recommends Mercedes due to low theft counts. We must find the unavoidable premises behind this recommendation.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim compares theft counts across brands.No mention of buyer’s budget or market shares.Concept / Approach:Assumption I (affordability) is not necessary for the advice to be articulated; Mr. X may simply be offering his criterion (theft risk) without regard to Y’s finances. Assumption II (small market share) would actually undercut the inference by offering an alternative explanation for low thefts (base-rate issue); it is not something Mr. X relies on—if anything he implicitly ignores it. Hence neither I nor II is a required premise.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Advice can be given irrespective of the recipient’s means; it may be impractical but does not require affordability as a hidden premise.2) II: A base-rate explanation is a potential objection, not an assumed support.Verification / Alternative check:Argument analysis distinguishes between supportive assumptions and rival explanations; II is the latter.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only falsely imports budget; II-only mistakes a counterargument for a premise; both/either overstate.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring base-rate fallacy while evaluating comparative counts.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 8

Statement–Assumption — “People of State X were forced to eat rats due to starvation and malnutrition,” states an NGO in a public-interest writ petition (PIL) to the court. Assumptions: I. The court will issue notice to the State Government to reliev…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A public-interest litigation claims extreme deprivation and seeks judicial intervention. For such a filing to be meaningful, certain background beliefs about the court’s role must be taken for granted.Given Data / Assumptions:There is a grave allegation of starvation and malnutrition in State X.An NGO has approached the court through a PIL mechanism.The petition asks for relief and enforcement of basic human rights.Concept / Approach:In Statement–Assumption questions, we test which premise is necessary for the statement/action to make sense. Filing a PIL presupposes that the court has jurisdiction and power to issue directions for rights protection (Assumption II). However, it does not require the stronger, predictive belief that the court will issue notice (Assumption I). Petitioners hope for relief, but the action of filing does not depend on certainty of that specific procedural outcome.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test I: The NGO can file even if the outcome is uncertain; hence I is not necessary.2) Test II: Without the belief that the court can direct the State on human-rights matters, filing a PIL would be pointless. Thus II is necessary.Verification / Alternative check:The essence of PILs is faith in judicial power to address rights violations, not a guarantee of a particular order.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“I only” overcommits to a specific result; “either/both” are too broad; “neither” ignores the obvious jurisdictional premise.Common Pitfalls:Confusing the possibility of relief (court has power) with the certainty of a particular procedural step (notice).Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 9

Statement–Assumption — Bank X advertisement: “With ‘Crop Junior Account’ stop worrying about money; concentrate on your studies. Features: no delays, no transaction cost, plus the safety of dealing with a Government of India enterprise.” Assumptions…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The advertisement appeals to two motives: institutional trust (“Government of India enterprise”) and practical convenience/cost (“no delays, no transaction cost”). We must identify the premises the copywriter relies on.Given Data / Assumptions:Messaging stresses safety through government affiliation.Value propositions are speed and zero transaction fees.Concept / Approach:For such messaging to persuade, two beliefs are required: (I) the target audience tends to trust government-owned entities, so citing that affiliation reduces perceived risk; (II) prospects care about low cost and quick service, so “no delays/no fees” will motivate them. If either belief were absent, the highlighted features would not meaningfully increase conversion.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assumption I aligns with the “safety” claim—trust in public-sector enterprises underpins it.2) Assumption II underlies the utility framing—customers value cheaper and faster service.Verification / Alternative check:Advertising commonly couples trust signals with value signals to trigger action; both must resonate to be effective.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” or “only II” ignores half the persuasion strategy; “neither” contradicts basic advertising logic; “either” is insufficient.Common Pitfalls:Reading ad copy as mere description; in fact it strategically selects attributes based on audience preferences.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement–Assumption — Citizen’s view on Special Operation Group (SOG): “When forces like SOG are set up, some excesses are bound to happen and some innocents suffer. But we should be satisfied with the success of SOG.” Assumptions: I. Suffering of …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker justifies supporting SOG despite acknowledging “excesses” and harm to innocents. We must surface the normative and practical premises that make the conclusion follow.Given Data / Assumptions:Security operations may impose collateral costs.The speaker evaluates outcomes in aggregate (“we should be satisfied”).Concept / Approach:Two assumptions are necessary. (I) A utilitarian trade-off: limited innocent harm is acceptable relative to public safety gains; otherwise the recommendation to “be satisfied” would be incoherent. (II) A feasibility claim: zero-collateral-damage outcomes are impractical, i.e., some negatives are “bound to happen”; else, endorsing harmful excesses would be needless.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Without the moral trade-off (I), the conclusion collapses—harm would be intolerable.2) Without the practicality claim (II), one would demand better design rather than accept excesses.Verification / Alternative check:Public-security debates often hinge on “necessary evil” reasoning, combining pragmatic limits with proportionality.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” lacks the feasibility premise; “only II” lacks the normative license; “either” is insufficient; “neither” contradicts the text.Common Pitfalls:Missing that both a value premise and a practicality premise are invoked.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 11

Statement–Assumption — Department of Environment (public notice): “Do not burn leaves. Bury them in compost pits so they convert into natural manure, which benefits the soil.” Assumptions: I. Burning leaves releases particulate matter and raises air…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The notice recommends composting instead of burning leaves, citing benefits to soil and implying public-health concerns. The reasoning relies on environmental and agronomic premises.Given Data / Assumptions:Leaf burning contributes smoke and fine particulates to ambient air.Composting returns organic matter and nutrients to soil.Concept / Approach:Two assumptions are necessary: (I) burning leaves degrades air quality and harms health; otherwise the ban recommendation would lack a public-health basis; (II) composting offers superior agronomic value compared to ash, justifying the specific alternative (burying in pits) rather than merely “do not burn.” Without II, the notice could recommend any disposal method and would not need to prefer composting.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I supplies the harm premise for avoiding burning.2) II supplies the benefit premise for preferring composting.Verification / Alternative check:Solid-waste advisories typically pair a harm avoidance reason with a positive alternative featuring co-benefits.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one premise incompletely supports the prescribed behavior; “neither” rejects both health and soil rationales contrary to the notice.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking that the notice argues both against burning and in favor of a particular alternative.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 12

Statement–Assumption — Beverage vending advertisement: “A tempting cup of hot Georgia awaits you at every street corner… tea in Regular, Adrak, Elaichi, Masala; or coffee in Regular, Mocha, Cappuccino. One sip will show every other option is a compr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The ad promotes conveniently available, flavorful beverages with multiple variants. Its persuasive force depends on consumer preferences, not on universal dependency.Given Data / Assumptions:Product: tea/coffee from vending machines at many locations.Claims: delicious taste and variety; convenience (“every street corner”).Concept / Approach:Assumption I is necessary: the campaign presumes a sizable audience that enjoys tea/coffee and values flavor options—without that demand, touting variants and taste would not persuade. Assumption II is far too strong: advertising never needs everyone to be addicted; it targets a large enough segment. The copy would still make sense if some people did not drink tea/coffee at all.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test I: Desire for a tasty beverage and appreciation of variety underlie the message—necessary.2) Test II: Universal addiction is unnecessary and unrealistic—reject.Verification / Alternative check:Marketing segmentation aims at likely users, not literally everyone.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Both” and “either” overstate; “neither” denies the obvious taste/variety appeal; “II only” contradicts the ad’s reliance on preference rather than addiction.Common Pitfalls:Confusing broad appeal with universality.Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 13

Statement–Assumption — A newly appointed Prime Minister says: “If you ask me about the daunting challenges we face, my government’s first priority is to improve the existing law-and-order situation. Next comes the issue of commodity prices.” Assumpt…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker sequences priorities: stabilizing law and order before tackling price-level concerns. We must uncover the hidden premises that make this ordering rational and persuasive.Given Data / Assumptions:Primary priority cited: improve law and order.Secondary priority: address commodity prices.Audience: citizens who care about safety and affordability.Concept / Approach:In Statement–Assumption items, an assumption is a necessary belief that must hold for the statement to make sense. The PM’s ordering presupposes (I) security is foundational: without physical safety and social order, other life projects (earning, feeding families, education, mobility) are impaired. The ordering also presupposes (II) prices materially affect the public; otherwise ranking “prices” second would be arbitrary and politically tone-deaf.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test I: If safety were not considered prerequisite, putting law and order first would be hard to justify. Hence I is necessary.2) Test II: If prices did not heavily impact citizens, elevating them to second priority would lack rationale. Hence II is necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Public-policy frameworks often treat “security” as a basic need and “affordability/inflation” as the next-order macro concern. The ordering mirrors Maslow-like tiers in governance.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” neglects the salience of prices; “Only II” ignores security’s primacy; “Either” is insufficient; “Neither” conflicts with the explicit prioritization.Common Pitfalls:Confusing political rhetoric with mere opinion; here, explicit ordering signals value and dependency assumptions.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 14

Statement–Assumption — Department of Consumer Affairs: “If you have unresolved consumer disputes, do not feel helpless. Assert your rights. Approach the District Consumer Forum for speedy redressal.” Assumptions: I. People avoid approaching the foru…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The department urges consumers with unresolved grievances to use the District Consumer Forum, emphasizing “speedy redressal.” We must find which underlying beliefs are necessary for this communication.Given Data / Assumptions:The forum exists and offers redressal for legitimate consumer disputes.Citizens may feel helpless or unsure of the remedy path.The copy highlights “speedy” outcomes to motivate action.Concept / Approach:An assumption is required only if the statement depends on it to make sense. Assumption I posits a specific reason—bureaucratic red-tapism—for avoidance. The appeal does not hinge on that particular cause; people could be hesitant due to ignorance, fear of costs, or time constraints. Hence I is not necessary. Assumption II claims that the promise of speed will automatically attract disputes. The call to action does not require a predictive claim about volumes; it merely advises those who already have disputes to approach the forum.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the minimal beliefs: the forum provides redressal within reasonable time; citizens should assert rights.2) Neither I nor II is a necessary precondition for issuing this advice.Verification / Alternative check:The message stands even if hesitation stems from reasons other than red tape, and even if uptake does not surge.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option asserting I or II is implicit overstates what the message must presuppose.Common Pitfalls:Reading persuasive slogans as predictions (II) or attributing a single cause to hesitation (I).Final Answer:if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement–Assumption — “It is not always true that only an intelligent person can qualify the written examination for Probationary Officers (POs).” Assumptions: I. An intelligent person can qualify the written examination for POs. II. A person who i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement rejects the exclusivity claim that only intelligent people qualify the PO written exam. We must determine which beliefs must be true for this rejection to hold meaningfully.Given Data / Assumptions:Target claim negated: exclusivity of intelligence as a qualifying condition.Focus: existence of qualifiers outside the “intelligent” set.Concept / Approach:To say “not only intelligent can qualify” minimally presupposes that non-intelligent (or less-intelligent/other traits like diligent, well-prepared) candidates can also qualify (Assumption II). It does not need to presume that intelligent people can qualify (I); even if some intelligent candidates fail, the point is about exclusivity, not sufficiency or certainty for intelligence.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Translate: “Only intelligent qualify” is false → There exists at least one qualifier who is not intelligent → II is necessary.2) I is not necessary: the claim does not guarantee outcomes for intelligent candidates; it only denies exclusivity.Verification / Alternative check:From logic: “Not (Only A are B)” implies “Some B are not A.” It does not assert “All A are B.”Why Other Options Are Wrong:“I only” misreads the negation; “either/both” overcommit; “neither” ignores the existential claim about non-intelligent qualifiers.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “only A” with “all A” and overlooking the existential counterexample needed to refute exclusivity.Final Answer:if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 16

Statement–Assumption — Mr. X says: “Human rights are only for human beings, not for terrorists. Protesting for those found guilty of terrorism insults human rights.” Assumptions: I. Terrorists do not deserve sympathy. II. Acts of terrorism are again…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker draws a harsh boundary: those convicted of terrorism do not merit human-rights advocacy. This stance rests on moral judgments about terrorism and those who commit it.Given Data / Assumptions:The statement concerns those “found guilty,” i.e., convicted terrorists.It labels support for them as an “insult” to human rights.Concept / Approach:For the conclusion to follow, (I) the speaker must believe terrorists do not deserve sympathy or rights-claims—otherwise protesting on their behalf would not be objectionable. Also, (II) the acts themselves are seen as affronts to humanity; if terrorism were not against humanity, the clash with “human rights” would be incoherent. Together, these premises justify the statement’s strong normative rejection.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Without I (no sympathy), labeling advocacy as an “insult” would be inconsistent.2) Without II (terrorism against humanity), the linkage between terrorism and renunciation of human-rights claims collapses.Verification / Alternative check:Public discourse often predicates denial of moral standing on the belief that the underlying acts violate basic human values.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” lacks the foundational evaluation of terrorism; “Only II” lacks the stance on sympathy; “either” under-supports; “neither” contradicts the rhetoric.Common Pitfalls:Missing that the statement embeds both a devaluation of perpetrators and a condemnation of the act.Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement–Assumption — A scientist says: “Finding higher resistance in malarial parasites is significant because the analysis used modern DNA sequencing. Although the sample size was only 50, there could be no doubt about the result.” Assumptions: I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The scientist expresses confidence in a result despite a small sample, citing the use of modern DNA sequencing. We must determine which background belief is required to justify that confidence.Given Data / Assumptions:Method: modern DNA sequencing.Sample size: only 50 (acknowledged as small).Conclusion: “no doubt” in the result.Concept / Approach:The justification explicitly leans on the method’s credibility. Thus (I) is necessary: the scientist presumes modern techniques deliver higher accuracy/validity than older methods, offsetting some concerns about limited n. By contrast, (II) is the opposite of standard statistical reasoning; smaller samples usually reduce precision. The scientist never claims smaller n improves reliability; therefore II is not implicit.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link confidence to method quality: modern DNA sequencing → higher trust → supports “no doubt.”2) Reject II: it contradicts statistical principles and is not suggested by the statement.Verification / Alternative check:Even when asserting strong confidence, researchers typically invoke superior methodology, not the virtue of small samples.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II,” “either,” or “both” mischaracterize the role of sample size; “neither” ignores the explicit method-based confidence.Common Pitfalls:Assuming the speaker endorses all implications of what is mentioned (e.g., small sample → better) rather than the specific rationale offered (method quality).Final Answer:if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: "Our state does not need State Human Rights Commission, therefore we have abolished State Human Rights Commision." - CM of state 'X' Assumptions: I. There will be no cases of violation of human rights in state 'X'. II. State 'X' has alter…

Accepted Answer

It is not clear from the statement what the CM is exactly assuming. But the tone of the statement implies he must be assuming either I or II.

Question 19

Statement: " We need to instil a sense of pride among the people for the rich cultural heritage of the country and its various regions." - Speaker of the Lok Sabha Assumptions: I. Culture is what gives meaning to our lives and identity to us a socia…

Accepted Answer

Why the need to instil such a sense of pride among the people? The speaker must be assuming I. II is not implicit because one does not desire for a need unless one assumes it to be feasible.

Question 20

Statement: Faculty of a reputed institute 'Y' has advised the students to buy Magical Book Series of BSC Publishing Co if they do not want to miss the opportunities of being recruited as PO in PNB. Assumptions: I. Students may ignore the advice and …

Accepted Answer

Note that if one advises others to purchase a thing X, the former assumes that the latter have enough money to purchase it.

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter