Question 1

Statement: "Always use zebra crossings and subways to cross the road safely." - A notice by the City Traffic Police Assumptions: I. Road safety is not an option but a must for pedestrians. II. Safety can be increased by making people aware of tips r…

Accepted Answer

Both I and II are implicit. Why did the city traffic police need to issue such a notice? It must have assumed II. Again the word 'always' used in the notice makes I implicit.

Question 2

Statement: "High-tension wire can be extremely dangerous. Keep a safe distance from them." - A notice by Delhi Transco Limited Assumptions: I. High-tension wires are laid in complete accordance with the law along routes that are legally approved by …

Accepted Answer

Both I and II can't be correlated with the statement. Hence, neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement: "Honourable citizen of state, 'X' please rise and rat on your power- thrieving neighbour. You could win a motorcycle, a colour TV set or a washing machine." __ UPPCL Assumptions: I. In order to get these gadgets, people of state 'X' will …

Accepted Answer

I is an assumption because the statement uses the gadgets as an allurement. II is obvious. Note that the initiative is aimed at improving the financial condition of the company by reducing theft. Hence, the company must be assuming II.

Question 4

Statement: "Irrespective of who comes to power, what is of prime importance is to heal the badly shaken lives of the people of state 'X' with the assurance that things would not go haywire in future." - A citizen of state X Assumptions: I. The tenet…

Accepted Answer

I is implicit. The "badly shaken lives" will be headed through development. "That things would not go haywire" can be assured through good governance. II is not implicit: we don't know whether the image of the state has been tarnished.

Question 5

Statement: "There should not be any delay in filing a complaint. If a policeman is not helpful or harasses a woman, the victim should note his name and belt number and send a complaint to senior officials specifying the place where he was on duty."-…

Accepted Answer

How can an illiterate person wright the name and belt number of erring policemen? Hence, the speaker must be assuming I. Again, the instruction to send a complaint to senior officials implies that the speaker must be assuming II also.

Question 6

Statement: "Buy durable pillows of company 'X' . The pillows have been made from 100% imported downs and feather; have the natural property to take the contour and shape of your head, neck and shoulder while you sleep; and are very popular abroad as…

Accepted Answer

I is implicit; that is why the advertisement emphasises the popularity of product abroad as well as in domestic market. The natural property focussed on in the ad is conducive to facilitating sound sleep. Hence, II is also implicit.

Question 7

Statement: "Oil the wheels that India moves on" is the cry of bicycle manufacturers in the country. Assumptions: I. The bicycle and components industry is a priority focus area possessing capability of thrusting export. II. Bicycle is the most affor…

Accepted Answer

I may or may not be an assumption. But II is obviously implicit. That is why the manufacturers need to oil the wheels that India moves on.

Question 8

Statement: "No representative is authorised to collect cash. Do not pay cash to anybody. All subscribers are requested to make payments only through cheques/DD in favour of the company." - An instruction to subscribers by company X Assumptions: I. I…

Accepted Answer

Only I is implicit. Why does the company need to issue such instruction? It must be assuming I. The motive behind the instruction may be to ensure convenience in keeping the records regarding transaction of the company. Hence, II is not implicit.

Question 9

Statement: "Please do not display a damaged or dishevelled flag." - Ministry of Home Affairs Assumptions: I. Damaged and dishevelled flag is an indicator of the deteriorating condition of a country. II. When a flag is damaged or soiled, it should be…

Accepted Answer

if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement: "On this auspicious occasion of Republic Day let us take the resolution to help the drought-affected 4.3 crore population and 4.5 crore livestock of the state." - An appeal by the CM of state X to its citizens Assumptions: I. Citizens' pa…

Accepted Answer

I may or may not be an assumption. But II is obvious. That is why the CM appeals for people's participation.

Question 11

Statement–Assumption — “Better understanding and cooperation among exporters is needed. Effort should be to complement each other rather than compete among ourselves.” — View of an agriculturist Assumptions: I) Exporters stand to lose if they act as…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests the staple “statement–assumption” skill: identify the minimum background belief that must be true for the recommendation to make sense. The statement proposes that exporters should coordinate and complement each other rather than compete internally. The speaker is motivated by market outcomes that would improve if rivalry among exporters were softened in favor of coordination. Given Data / Assumptions: Recommendation: exporters ought to complement, not compete. Goal: better outcomes for the exporter community and the sector. Two candidate assumptions: (I) competition among exporters causes loss; (II) farmer–industry cooperation is highly effective. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to be rational, the speaker must believe that intra-exporter competition is harmful relative to coordination. That is exactly Assumption I: exporters lose—e.g., by undercutting each other in foreign markets, fragmenting bargaining power, or duplicating costs—when they compete head-to-head instead of pooling strengths (quality standards, logistics, market intelligence). Assumption II is about a different axis (farmer–industry cooperation). Although such cooperation may be good, the speaker’s sentence strictly addresses cooperation among exporters, not farmers and industry; therefore II is not necessary for the stated recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate the prescription: shift from rivalry to complementarity among exporters.2) Identify the needed premise: rivalry is net harmful (I).3) Check materiality of II: it discusses a different cooperative link and is not a prerequisite. Verification / Alternative check: If exporter competition were harmless or beneficial, urging complementarity would lack force. Conversely, the statement would still make sense even if farmer–industry cooperation were neutral; hence II is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” misreads the subject; “either” overgenerates; “neither” ignores the harm-from-rivalry premise; “None of these” would be correct only if both were needed, which they are not. Common Pitfalls: Dragging in appealing but off-scope partnerships (farmers–industry) instead of focusing on the exact relationship mentioned (exporter–exporter). Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 12

Statement–Assumption — “The TV industry requests the government to lower customs duty on colour picture tubes to 10% so that colour TV sales can reach 10 million units next fiscal.” Assumptions: I) Excess protection for the domestic CPT industry has…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An industry lobby seeks a tariff cut on a key component (colour picture tubes) to spur downstream sales (colour TVs). In assumption problems, we ask: what belief must the requester hold for the request to be coherent? Given Data / Assumptions: Policy sought: reduce CPT customs duty to 10%. Claimed effect: push CTV sales to 10 million in the next fiscal. Assumption I: present protection impedes CTV growth (e.g., raises costs/prices). Assumption II: overprotection leads to predatory pricing by domestic producers. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: the ask presumes that the current tariff elevates costs enough to dampen demand, and that lowering it will expand sales volume. Without that causal link, the request lacks justification. Assumption II introduces a specific market-conduct claim (predatory pricing) that is not required to argue for a tariff cut; the industry can rationally demand lower input tariffs even if no predation occurs, simply because it lowers retail prices and boosts affordability. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Connect tariff → component cost → TV price → unit sales.2) Recognize that the only needed premise is that the current tariff is a binding growth constraint (I).3) Note that allegations about predation (II) are not necessary to the sales-growth logic. Verification / Alternative check: Even in perfectly competitive domestic CPT markets (no predation), a tariff cut still reduces costs and can raise quantity demanded; therefore II is not essential. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” divorces the request from its core price-cost mechanism; “either” overstates; “neither” denies the obvious cost pass-through premise; “None of these” implies both are required, which is false. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a sufficient extra complaint (predation) with a necessary premise. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 13

Statement–Assumption — Bottled water companies X and Y deny contamination: “Our products are made under rigorous quality control meeting all BIS standards.” Assumptions: I) Production under rigorous quality control yields trustworthy (safe) results.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The companies rebut contamination allegations by citing two pillars: (1) “rigorous quality control,” and (2) conformity to BIS standards. In argument analysis, when a defence invokes two independent supports, the speaker typically presupposes both supports are credible and relevant. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: water is not contaminated. Support A: rigorous QC during production. Support B: compliance with BIS standards. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is required because the defence appeals to QC; if rigorous QC could still yield untrustworthy outputs, invoking it would not reassure. Assumption II is also required since the defence leverages BIS compliance; if BIS were not recognized as the legitimate standard-setter, that appeal would be toothless. Therefore the argument relies on both I and II. However, the option set does not include “both I and II.” In such cases, the correct selection is “None of these,” which stands for “none of the four preceding patterns (only I / only II / either / neither) describes the situation,” leaving “both” as the implied resolution. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify each cited warrant (QC and BIS) and its corresponding assumption.2) Test necessity: removing either warrant undermines the defence’s persuasive force.3) Map to choices: since “both” is absent, pick “None of these.” Verification / Alternative check: Real-world corporate responses regularly pair internal process assurances with external standard compliance precisely because both together build credibility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/II” ignores one pillar; “either” treats them as substitutes, but both are claimed; “neither” contradicts the structure of the defence. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that “None of these” often encodes the “both” case when not otherwise provided. Final Answer: None of these (both Assumptions I and II are implicit).

Question 14

Statement–Assumption — “By 2010, India will be the country with the greatest number of heart patients.” Assumptions: I) It is possible to determine and compare the number of heart patients across countries. II) By 2010, India will be the most popula…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The prediction ranks India at the top by count of heart patients. To make any cross-country “greatest number” claim, one must assume that the underlying counts are measurable and comparable. Population rank is not strictly necessary for such a medical-burden ranking, because prevalence and risk factors vary. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: India will have the highest count of heart patients by 2010. Assumption I: cross-national counts are obtainable and comparable. Assumption II: India will be the most populated country by 2010. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: if we could not determine the numbers reliably, a definitive ranking would be baseless. Assumption II is not required: a country can lead in heart-patient counts without being most populous if disease prevalence is higher; conversely, a most populous country might not lead if prevalence is low. The statement never appeals to population ranking; it appeals to absolute case counts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Translate “greatest number” into a need for cross-country epidemiological comparability (I).2) Show population rank (II) is neither mentioned nor logically necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Public health comparisons regularly use measured incidence/prevalence databases (registries, surveys) to compare countries; this presupposition matches I, not II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” confuses headcount with population rank; “either” overstates; “neither” ignores the measurability premise; “None of these” would imply both, which is unwarranted. Common Pitfalls: Assuming demographic dominance is the sole driver of disease burden rankings. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 15

Statement–Assumption — “Unlike other threats, AIDS spreads slowly but steadily. Governments spend billions against terrorism, yet do not show comparable seriousness against this sure killer.” — A citizen’s comment Assumptions: I) Government percepti…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker contrasts high spending against terrorism with inadequate seriousness toward AIDS, described as a “sure killer.” The rhetorical target is policy priority, not a mathematical comparison of lethality. In assumption analysis, we isolate the belief that must hold for the critique to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Observation: AIDS expands slowly and steadily. Contrast: heavy counter-terror spending vs. insufficient AIDS seriousness. Policy thrust: calls for greater governmental seriousness on AIDS. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: if government perception did not need to shift, the appeal for seriousness would be misplaced. The claim “sure killer” signals that AIDS deserves more attention than it currently receives. Assumption II states an absolute ranking (“poses more threats than terrorism”). The argument does not need this extreme claim; one can argue for greater AIDS seriousness even if its threat is not categorically greater than terrorism. The essence is proportionality and adequacy, not supremacy in risk. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Extract the implied corrective: re-prioritize resources and focus toward AIDS.2) Show that asserting strict superiority in threat level is not required to justify more seriousness. Verification / Alternative check: Public budgets commonly expand for an underfunded risk without establishing it as strictly greater than another risk; adequacy is enough. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Including II forces an unnecessary absolute. “Either” overgeneralizes; “neither” ignores the prioritization premise; “None of these” implies both, which is not needed. Common Pitfalls: Reading “more funding needed” as “risk is definitely greater than terrorism.” Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 16

Statement–Assumption — Ex-captain on pre-match toss: “When Mr X and Mr Y stepped out, it was evident that one had a positive frame of mind while the other was tense, fearing defeat and elimination.” Assumptions: I) Panic always sets in when a team p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The comment observes contrasting mindsets—confidence vs. tension—before a match. The inference is based on demeanor at the toss; it does not claim universal rules about panic after losing streaks or about “magical days” of performance. We must check whether either sweeping statement is necessary to support the observation. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed: one captain looked positive; the other seemed tense, fearing elimination. Assumption I: panic always follows a spate of defeats. Assumption II: occasionally a player becomes unstoppable and others look inadequate. Concept / Approach: Neither I nor II is required. The ex-captain can form an opinion about mindset from body language or context (knockout stakes) without presuming an absolute rule about defeats always causing panic (I). Likewise, the statement says nothing about “magical days” or unstoppable players (II). It is a plain, situational assessment of attitude, not a theory of performance extremes. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the narrow claim: contrasting mental states at a specific toss.2) Test each assumption for necessity: both introduce broad generalizations unrelated to the stated observation. Verification / Alternative check: A single tense demeanor can arise from many factors (injuries, team form, pressure) without invoking universal rules or “magical form” narratives. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing I or II smuggles in extraneous generalizations; “either” still overcommits; “None of these” would imply both are necessary, which they are not. Common Pitfalls: Projecting commentary clichés into minimal observational claims. Final Answer: Neither Assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement–Assumption — City police request: “Mail your grievances and confidential information to the Commissioner of Police.” Assumptions: I) People across categories may have grievances or information to share. II) Citizens have blind faith in the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Authorities invite citizens to send grievances and confidential tips to the Commissioner. Such outreach presupposes that members of the public possess relevant complaints or information that could aid policing. It does not depend on citizens having “blind faith” in a particular operational unit like the flying squad; the channel specified is the Commissioner’s office, which can route matters appropriately. Given Data / Assumptions: Call to action: email grievances and confidential information to the Commissioner. Assumption I: citizens (across categories) may have grievances/tips worth reporting. Assumption II: people have blind faith in the vigilance flying squad’s efficiency. Concept / Approach: Assumption I is necessary: if the public had nothing to report, the channel creation/request would be futile. The quantifier “all categories” should be read in the practical sense that grievances can come from any segment, not that every single person has one. Assumption II is irrelevant and too specific; the message does not reference the flying squad, nor does it require “blind faith.” Even if trust were mixed, the Commissioner’s channel could still be useful and legitimate. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Link the request to its feasibility premise: the public holds reportable information (I).2) Show that specific beliefs about a sub-unit’s perceived efficiency (II) are not prerequisites. Verification / Alternative check: Citizen reporting portals work even when trust is imperfect; multiple oversight mechanisms and audit trails can compensate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II” misplaces the locus of trust; “either” overstates; “neither” ignores the fundamental premise that tips exist; “None of these” implies both are required, which they are not. Common Pitfalls: Overreading precise organizational preferences into a simple reporting request. Final Answer: Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: “Beware! Recycled coloured plastic bags contain harmful colour pigments which, when they come in contact with food, can make the food unfit for consumption and may cause severe food poisoning, allergies, or even death,” says a scientist. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Statement–assumption questions test whether a given claim presupposes (takes for granted) certain background beliefs. An assumption is “implicit” if the original statement would feel unsurprising or adequately supported only when that belief is taken as true in the background. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Non-biodegradability makes plastic bags an environmental hazard. II. Use of plastic bags is harmful and can have cascading effects on human life. Concept / Approach: The scientist's warning specifically links coloured, recycled plastic bags to food contamination due to harmful pigments. We must check which assumption(s) the warning relies on. The focus is health risk via food contact, not general environmental impact. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the core message: coloured recycled plastic bags can leach harmful pigments into food, making it unsafe and potentially fatal.2) Ask: What must be true for this warning to make sense? At minimum, that using such plastic bags poses harm to humans via food contamination.3) Assumption II directly supports the health-risk claim: it presumes that using these bags is harmful and that harm can cascade (poisoning, allergies, death).4) Assumption I concerns non-biodegradability and environmental hazard. The statement is about food safety and human health, not environmental persistence or biodegradation. The warning would remain fully meaningful even if biodegradability were unknown.5) Therefore, II is implicit; I is not required. Verification / Alternative check: If plastics were biodegradable yet still leached harmful pigments, the warning would remain valid. Hence I is not necessary. If using plastic were not harmful, the warning would be pointless; thus II is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I implicit: incorrect; I is not needed for a food-safety warning. Either I or II: incorrect; exactly one (II) is required. Neither: incorrect; II is required. Both: incorrect; I is extraneous. Common Pitfalls: Confusing environmental hazard (non-biodegradability) with health hazard (toxic pigments). The statement argues the latter. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: “Given a likely fiscal deficit of around five percent, there is no denying the need for a consensus to trim government expenditure,” says Mr. X. Assumptions I & II: I. Trimming government expenditure is an effective tool to curb the fisca…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement proposes trimming government expenditure in response to a likely 5% fiscal deficit and calls for consensus on that action. We must identify which assumption(s) make this recommendation sensible. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Cutting expenditure helps reduce fiscal deficit. II. Cutting expenditure does not help reduce fiscal deficit. Concept / Approach: A recommendation presupposes that the proposed measure serves the goal. If the speaker urges expenditure cuts to address deficit, the speaker must assume such cuts are effective. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Goal: curb a ~5% fiscal deficit.2) Proposed action: trim government expenditure.3) Necessary assumption: trimming expenditure is an effective tool to curb the deficit (Assumption I).4) Assumption II directly contradicts the rationale; the speaker would not urge an ineffective tool. Verification / Alternative check: Even if other tools (raise revenue, restructure debt) exist, the recommendation still requires believing that expenditure cuts help. Thus I is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: contradicts the proposal. Either I or II: cannot both be presupposed. Neither: false; some belief in effectiveness (I) must hold. Both: logically inconsistent. Common Pitfalls: Assuming recommendations require exclusivity. The statement does not deny other tools; it only needs I to be true. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: Despite India’s dismal World Cup performances, cricket betting is going on in full swing across the country (news report). Assumptions I & II: I. India’s dismal performances discourage betting business all over the world. II. Bookies are …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The news claims that betting remains “in full swing” in India despite poor national performance. We must infer which background belief(s) the report presupposes for that claim to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: I. India’s poor performance discourages betting globally. II. Bookies benefit (“make merry”) when betting activity is high. Concept / Approach: “In full swing” indicates robust betting activity. The report contrasts this with a factor that might have reduced betting (poor performance) but did not. It implicitly recognizes the continued profitability/benefit to bookmakers. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Core claim: betting thrives despite poor performance of Team India.2) Necessary backdrop: when betting is “in full swing,” bookies have business and profit (Assumption II).3) Assumption I overreaches: it generalizes to “all over the world,” which the statement neither mentions nor needs. The contrast is domestic (in the country).4) Hence II is implicit; I is not required and is too broad. Verification / Alternative check: Even if global betting were unaffected, the statement would still hold; its scope is India. But if bookies did not benefit from volume, “in full swing” would be less meaningful as a newsworthy point. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: unsupported scope. Either I or II: exactly one (II) is needed. Neither: incorrect; II is necessary. Both: I adds unjustified global breadth. Common Pitfalls: Reading “in full swing” as purely descriptive without economic implication; in betting contexts it strongly implies bookmakers benefit. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions