Question 1

Statement: “I heard the news as soon as I woke up this morning, and I felt shattered.” Assumptions I & II: I. The incident reported in the news occurred before the speaker woke up. II. The news was shocking to the speaker. Select the option that cor…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We evaluate which background beliefs the statement relies on. The speaker reports immediate awareness (“as soon as I woke up”) and a strong emotional reaction (“felt shattered”). Given Data / Assumptions: I. The incident happened before the speaker woke up. II. The news content was shocking. Concept / Approach: Assumptions must be necessary to make the statement sensible. The emotional reaction suggests shock or distress; timing of the incident need not be known. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The speaker heard the news upon waking—this says nothing definite about when the incident occurred; it could have happened earlier or just been reported then.2) “Felt shattered” indicates the news was shocking or deeply upsetting, which must be assumed for the reaction to be coherent (Assumption II).3) Therefore, II is implicit; I is not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the incident occurred after waking, the speaker could still hear about it immediately and be shattered. Hence I is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: not necessary. Either I or II: only II is required. Neither: false; II is essential. Both: I adds an unnecessary timeline claim. Common Pitfalls: Equating time of hearing news with time of occurrence; they can differ. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 2

Statement: “God bless all the parents whose children passed away in the Yamuna waters,” says a student. Assumptions I & II: I. The student believes in God (invokes blessing sincerely or idiomatically). II. Some children have died by drowning in the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The utterance expresses condolence and invokes divine blessing for bereaved parents whose children “passed away in the Yamuna waters.” We must determine which background beliefs the statement takes for granted. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The speaker believes in (or at least meaningfully invokes) God's blessing. II. There has been a drowning tragedy in the Yamuna involving children. Concept / Approach: An assumption is necessary if, without it, the utterance would lose its intended sense. The blessing presumes both a tragedy occurred and that invoking God’s blessing is an intelligible act for the speaker. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Content: the speaker references parents “whose children passed away in the Yamuna,” presupposing such deaths occurred (Assumption II).2) Illocutionary force: saying “God bless” presumes the speaker is appealing to divine grace as meaningful; even if idiomatic, the act assumes belief in the efficacy or appropriateness of invoking God’s blessing (Assumption I).3) Both I and II are thus required to make the utterance coherent and contextually appropriate. Verification / Alternative check: If no such deaths occurred, the statement would be baseless. If invoking God were meaningless to the speaker, the form of condolence would be incoherent as chosen. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each omits a necessary part of the background. Either I or II: both are needed. Neither: plainly false. Common Pitfalls: Arguing that idiomatic use negates belief; even idioms rely on shared meaning about “God bless” as a fitting condolence. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 3

Statement: “Illiterate and drunk drivers should not be employed—at least where children are concerned,” says X. Assumptions I & II: I. Literacy contributes to safer or more competent driving. II. Children have a status equal to that of adults in eve…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The recommendation forbids employing illiterate or drunk drivers “at least for children,” implying a safety rationale. We test which assumptions are required. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Literacy aids driving safety/competence (e.g., reading signs, instructions). II. Children have a status fully equal to adults in every context. Concept / Approach: Forbidding illiterate drivers presumes literacy matters for safety. The phrase “at least for children” signals heightened protection, not status equality across contexts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The ban targets illiteracy and intoxication as risk factors.2) The child-focused caveat presumes additional caution is justified for children, not that children and adults have identical status in all respects.3) Therefore, I is necessary; II is not required by the statement. Verification / Alternative check: Even if adults could legally accept higher risk, the policy is minimum protection for children. Thus equality of status is irrelevant to the reasoning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: unrelated. Either I or II: only I is needed. Neither: false; I is required. Both: II adds an unnecessary claim. Common Pitfalls: Misreading “at least for children” as a claim about legal or social equality rather than protective priority. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 4

Statement: “Due to urgent repairs on a main line from the Wazirabad waterworks, water supply will be at low pressure on Thursday.” Assumptions I & II: I. Repair work impedes normal water supply. II. Water will still be available, albeit at low press…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The notice informs consumers about low water pressure on Thursday because of urgent repairs on a main line. Notices of this kind assume certain background facts about cause and effect and expected availability. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Repairs impede normal supply (cause of reduced pressure). II. Supply will continue, though at reduced pressure. Concept / Approach: For the notice to be informative, it must rely on repair work affecting pressure and on the notion that water will not be fully cut off. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The causal link between “urgent repair” and “low pressure” is assumed (I).2) Stating “low pressure” presumes there will still be water (II); otherwise “no supply” would be announced.3) Therefore, both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If repairs did not affect supply, no reason for pressure change exists. If water were unavailable, the notice would warn of a total shutdown, not mere low pressure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II: each omits an essential part of the communicated situation. Either I or II: both are required. Neither: plainly false. Common Pitfalls: Missing that “low pressure” communicates partial continuity of service. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 5

Statement: “Another strange thing I noticed last night was that the drawing-room lights were on.” Assumptions I & II: I. A thief must have entered the house. II. Usually, the drawing-room lights are kept off at night. Select the option that correctl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker calls the lights being “on” at night “another strange thing.” We examine which background belief(s) must hold for the strangeness claim to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: I. A thief must have come in. II. Normally the drawing-room lights are off at night. Concept / Approach: “Strange” implies a deviation from usual practice. It does not require a specific explanation like a burglary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Core observation: lights were on at night.2) Reason for calling it strange: presumes a usual pattern of lights being off (II).3) The statement does not assert or need the conclusion that a thief entered; that would be a separate inference. Verification / Alternative check: Other explanations (forgot to switch off, family member awake) are consistent; hence I is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: unsupported leap. Either I or II: only II is needed. Neither: incorrect because “strange” demands a baseline norm. Both: I adds unjustified certainty. Common Pitfalls: Inferring specific causes from anomalies without evidence. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: “Women should be given vocational training related to their work,” reads an advice. Assumptions I & II: I. Vocational training can increase an individual’s efficiency. II. Women are likely to benefit from receiving vocational training. Ch…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The recommendation specifically urges vocational training for women in relation to their work. We determine the necessary background beliefs that justify this advice. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Training improves efficiency/productivity. II. Women, in particular, would benefit from such training. Concept / Approach: Any recommendation in favor of training presumes training is effective (I). Targeting women presumes that women stand to benefit (II). Both are required for the advice to be purposive. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The advice promotes vocational training as a means to improve work outcomes.2) Effectiveness premise: training enhances efficiency (I).3) Targeting premise: women will actually gain from it (II); otherwise the targeting is baseless.4) Therefore, both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If training were ineffective, the advice would be pointless. If women would not benefit, singling them out is unjustified. Both premises are needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II omits a necessary condition. Either I or II: both are required. Neither: contradicts the rationale for the advice. Common Pitfalls: Thinking that general effectiveness (I) alone suffices; targeted advice also assumes audience benefit (II). Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 7

Statement: “People who swindle crores of taxpayers’ money go scot-free, while petty thieves—who may be stealing out of desperation—are given third-degree punishment and sometimes die in custody,” says Mr. X. Assumptions I & II: I. All persons should…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The remark contrasts impunity for large-scale financial crimes with harsh treatment of minor offenders, highlighting perceived injustice. We test which assumptions the critique relies on. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Equality before law should prevail. II. Punishment ought to be proportional to offence severity. Concept / Approach: Calling the situation unjust presupposes standards of legal equality and proportionality. Without these standards, the criticism would not carry normative force. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The contrast (swindlers vs petty thieves) is presented as morally/legalistically wrong.2) For it to be wrong, one must assume all are equal before law (I).3) Additionally, one must assume penalties should scale with offence gravity (II).4) Therefore both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If either equality or proportionality were rejected, the critique would weaken or collapse; hence both are necessary to sustain the complaint. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each omits a key normative premise. Either I or II: both are required. Neither: contradicts the basis of the criticism. Common Pitfalls: Focusing only on equality and overlooking proportionality, or vice versa. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 8

Statement: “Look under your seat. There could be a bomb. Raise the alarm. Earn reward.” — a written instruction to bus passengers Assumptions I & II: I. Passengers will read the instruction and may abide by it. II. Passengers’ participation may enha…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Notices and instructions in public places rest on background beliefs about how people behave and whether their actions can meaningfully affect outcomes. Here, bus passengers are told to check under seats for a possible bomb, raise an alarm, and are promised a reward. We must decide which assumptions are required for this instruction to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Passengers will read the message and may comply. II. Passenger participation improves security (threat detection/response). Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit if the directive would lose its practical point without it. Public-security messages presuppose audience attention and that laypeople can contribute to safety by reporting suspicious objects or activity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The instruction is purposive only if passengers are expected to see and follow it (I). If no one reads or acts, posting is futile.2) The call to “look under your seat” and “raise alarm” presumes that such vigilance from passengers can reduce risk by early detection (II).3) The reward clause further signals that compliance is expected and valuable, reinforcing both I and II.4) Therefore, both assumptions underpin the rationale of the notice. Verification / Alternative check: If passengers neither read nor comply, the notice cannot achieve security aims. If their participation cannot improve security, the instruction and reward are pointless. Thus both I and II must hold for the instruction to be sensible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: ignores the logic that participation must add security value. Only II: ignores the need for readership/compliance. Either I or II: both are required. Neither: contradicts the very purpose of posting the instruction. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “necessary” with “sufficient.” The assumptions need not guarantee total safety; they only need to hold for the directive to have point. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 9

Statement: To discipline auto drivers and provide relief to lakhs of passengers, the Transport Minister announced that strong action would be taken against drivers who do not display a magnified driver’s licence prominently on the windscreen after A…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The policy threatens action against drivers who fail to display a magnified licence. The stated goals are to discipline drivers and help passengers. We examine which assumptions are necessary to justify the announcement. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The measure will render it impossible for drivers to “fool owners.” II. Displaying the licence prominently will make it easier to identify offenders. Concept / Approach: For an enforcement-oriented notice, the core assumption is that the requirement (visible licence) enables monitoring and identification, thereby supporting discipline. Sweeping claims about eliminating all wrongdoing are not required. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The enforcement threat (“strong action”) implies authorities need a visible, checkable identifier to spot violations (II).2) The phrasing of I (“impossible…in any way”) is absolute and extends to “owners,” which is not the focus of the measure; the policy targets driver accountability to passengers/regulators. Such an absolute outcome is not necessary for the policy to make sense.3) Therefore, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some drivers still “fool” others, the policy can still be justified because identification improves enforcement. Hence I is not necessary; II is. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: too absolute and misdirected. Either I or II: only II is needed. Neither: contradicts the logic of identification-based enforcement. Both: overcommits beyond the policy’s necessary premise. Common Pitfalls: Assuming policies presuppose perfect compliance or elimination of all misconduct; realistic policies require only improved detectability and deterrence. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement: Government X proposes two new service cadres—Rural Development Service and Rural Engineering Service—to strengthen the Panchayati Raj model. Assumptions I & II: I. New cadres may help implement Government schemes empowering rural communit…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Creating specialized cadres is an institutional reform intended to improve execution capacity. The Panchayati Raj system emphasizes decentralized governance; strengthening it typically requires technical and administrative support. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Establishing new cadres will aid implementation of rural empowerment schemes. II. There are practical hurdles in implementing the Government’s schemes that warrant such cadres. Concept / Approach: A reform proposal presupposes that (a) the reform will help reach stated goals, and (b) current arrangements have shortcomings requiring correction. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The purpose—“to strengthen Panchayati Raj”—implies that additional capacity is helpful (I).2) The creation of new cadres presumes present implementation difficulties—skill gaps, coordination issues, or engineering bandwidth shortages (II).3) Together, these assumptions justify the institutional change; without either, the reform would seem unnecessary or misdirected. Verification / Alternative check: If current implementation were smooth, new cadres would be redundant. If cadres could not contribute to execution, the measure would not strengthen the system. Hence both assumptions are needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II omits part of the rationale; “either” fails because the proposal needs both problem recognition and solution efficacy. “Neither” ignores the basic logic of administrative reforms. Common Pitfalls: Confusing political intent with operational necessity; the very act of creating cadres indicates acknowledged implementation constraints and expected benefits. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 11

Statement: “Policies, programmes, and seminars cannot change the status of women; what is needed is an attitudinal change in society towards working women.” — View of Mr. X Assumptions I & II: I. It is possible to change society’s attitude towards w…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts formal interventions (policies, programmes, seminars) with “attitudinal change,” implying that social perceptions and norms are the binding constraint on women’s status, especially for working women. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Attitudes can be changed (through advocacy, education, socialization, etc.). II. The current status of working women is inadequate and needs improvement. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to be meaningful, the suggested lever (attitudes) must be malleable, and the target variable (status) must be suboptimal. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) By saying policies and seminars “cannot change status,” the speaker shifts emphasis to attitudes, presupposing that attitudes are changeable and causally relevant (I).2) Calling for change indicates dissatisfaction with the current status of working women (II).3) Therefore, both I and II underpin the recommendation. Verification / Alternative check: If attitudes were immutable, the prescription would be pointless. If status were already satisfactory, change would be unnecessary. Hence both assumptions must hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only one: incomplete rationale. Either: both needed. Neither: contradicts the call for attitudinal reform. Common Pitfalls: Reading the claim as dismissing all policy value; the point is relative emphasis—attitude change is seen as the binding lever. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 12

Statement: “Providing cooked meals to all primary-school students in State X is not a proper or judicious step.” — a criticism Assumptions I & II: I. Students may hesitate to eat the cooked meal provided by the Government. II. The cooked meal served…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The critic calls the policy of providing cooked meals to all primary students “not proper/judicious.” We must determine which background concerns are minimally necessary for that negative evaluation to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Students might refuse or hesitate to eat the meal (acceptance/uptake risk). II. The meal might be hazardous for health (safety/quality risk). Concept / Approach: A policy can be labeled “not proper” for multiple independent reasons. In this stem, two plausible lines of criticism are suggested: (a) acceptance/feasibility, and (b) safety/quality. The statement needs at least one such policy-relevant concern to justify the negative judgment, but not necessarily both. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If students hesitate to eat (I), the policy may waste resources or fail targets—sufficient grounds for calling it improper.2) If meals may be hazardous (II), health risk alone justifies the criticism.3) The criticism does not require that both non-acceptance and hazard be presumed simultaneously; either concern can independently support the conclusion.4) Therefore, at least one of I or II must be implicit; thus “Either I or II is implicit.” Verification / Alternative check: Other unstated grounds (cost, logistics) could also motivate criticism, but the stem itself points toward acceptance or safety. Because either ground suffices, the minimal necessary assumption is a disjunction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: each can be sufficient, but the stem does not force us to pick exactly one. Both I and II: stronger than necessary. Neither: leaves the criticism baseless. Common Pitfalls: Treating suggested reasons as jointly necessary; the test of implicitness seeks what must hold minimally for the evaluative claim to make sense. Final Answer: Either I or II is implicit.

Question 13

Statement: “Although no war occurred during Mr. X’s tenure as Prime Minister, many top bravery medals were conferred upon police officers for ‘curbing terrorism’ and ‘eliminating terrorists’ belonging to organisations from our own states,” says a ci…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker criticizes awarding top bravery medals to police during a war-free tenure, implying the awards are undeserved or mischaracterized when tied to anti-terror operations within the country. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Labeling such operations as “bravery” deserving top medals is objectionable/undeserved. II. War is less harmful than terrorism. Concept / Approach: The statement’s critical thrust is normative: it questions the merit of awarding top medals for domestic anti-terror actions. It does not hinge on a comparative harm assessment between war and terrorism. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The criticism presupposes that the cited acts should not be valorized at the “top bravery” level (I).2) Nothing in the statement claims that war is preferable or less harmful than terrorism; the no-war remark only sets context, not a harm comparison (II).3) Hence only I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if terrorism were more harmful than war, the argument could still dispute the appropriateness of medals; conversely, even if war were worse, the complaint could remain. Thus II is irrelevant to the conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: unrelated. Either I or II: only I is necessary. Neither: false; some negative judgment about awarding medals is required. Both: adds an unnecessary comparative claim. Common Pitfalls: Overreading contextual mentions (war/no-war) as evaluative claims about harms. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 14

Statement: “Completely eliminating the executive’s say is unacceptable; merit, ability, competence, integrity, and suitability alone are not enough for appointing High Court judges,” says a journalist. Assumptions I & II: I. A person’s social outloo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The journalist argues that eliminating the executive’s role is unacceptable and that “merit” (in a narrow sense) is insufficient for judicial appointments. This suggests additional attributes are relevant beyond formal credentials. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Broader qualities—social outlook, public-interest orientation, commitment to equality, political outlook—are also pertinent to appointing judges. II. Executive consultation ensures greater transparency. Concept / Approach: The first claim (merit alone is not enough) directly presupposes that other evaluative dimensions must be considered. The second claim (about the executive) does not necessarily presuppose a specific benefit like “transparency”; it could rest on balance, accountability, representation, or checks-and-balances. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Saying “merit etc. alone are not enough” entails that additional qualities matter (I).2) The rejection of “eliminating executive say” does not commit to the particular benefit named in II (transparency). The journalist could oppose elimination for reasons other than transparency.3) Therefore, only I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If I were false (no additional qualities matter), the journalist’s statement collapses. If II were false, the journalist might still hold that some executive role is needed for other reasons; hence II is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: unsupported specificity. Either I or II: only I is needed. Neither: incorrect because the “beyond merit” claim requires I. Both: overstates the necessary premises. Common Pitfalls: Equating “do not eliminate executive say” with a unique rationale like transparency, when multiple rationales could justify the position. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 15

Statement: “The potential of knowledge as a creator of wealth is gaining currency around the world,” says an economist. Assumptions I & II: I. Only usable knowledge that is protectable may have the potential for wealth creation. II. Only usable know…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The economist notes a growing global recognition that knowledge can create wealth. The claim is descriptive about trends in valuation and economic thinking, not a normative or legal statement about intellectual property. Given Data / Assumptions: I. “Only” protectable knowledge has wealth-creating potential. II. “Only” protected knowledge has wealth-creating potential. Concept / Approach: Both I and II introduce restrictive “only” conditions and specific legal features (protectability/protection) that the original statement does not assert. The statement is compatible with wealth creation via open knowledge, tacit know-how, trade secrets, public-domain science, open-source software, or proprietary IP. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The economist’s claim: recognition of knowledge’s wealth potential is spreading.2) This does not entail that only IP-guarded knowledge creates wealth (I or II). Many wealth-creating knowledge forms are unprotected or unprotectable (e.g., process innovations diffusing through learning-by-doing).3) Therefore, neither I nor II is a necessary assumption. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose unprotected open research yields industry-wide productivity gains—this still aligns with the statement. Thus the statement remains true without I or II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: both add narrowing conditions absent from the statement. Either: still overcommits. Both: most restrictive and least supported. Common Pitfalls: Conflating “knowledge economy” with “IP economy.” While IP can enable appropriability, it is not a necessary condition for wealth creation from knowledge. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 16

Statement: The “M” Cooperative Housing Society has posted a notice at its gate: “Sales persons are not allowed inside the society.” Assumptions I & II: I. All sales persons will stay away from the society. II. The security guard posted at the gate m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Notices prohibiting entry serve as policy statements coupled with an enforcement expectation. We must determine which assumption the society relies on. Given Data / Assumptions: I. All sales persons will comply and keep away. II. A gatekeeper (security guard) can intercept violators and enforce the rule. Concept / Approach: Prohibitory notices do not presume perfect voluntary compliance; rather, they presuppose enforceability—e.g., a guard can check, question, or deny entry to sales personnel. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The purpose of the notice is to set a rule and enable enforcement against non-compliant entrants.2) It is unrealistic and unnecessary to assume universal compliance (I). The notice is often directed as much to residents/guards as to visitors.3) The practical premise is that the guard can stop or turn away sales persons (II).4) Therefore, only II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if some sales persons attempt entry, the notice still functions given an enforcement mechanism. Without any enforcement, the notice loses effectiveness. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: overstrong and unnecessary. Either I or II: only II is needed. Neither: denies the enforcement premise. Both: includes an unnecessary universal-compliance claim. Common Pitfalls: Assuming public notices rely on everyone’s voluntary obedience; most rely on enforceability. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement: “If the city bus running between Ram Nagar and Sant Colony is extended to Vasant Vihar, it will be convenient.” — Appeal of Ram Nagar residents to the city bus company Assumptions I & II: I. The convenience of the bus company is more impo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Residents request a route extension citing convenience. Such appeals commonly rest on user need and potential service improvement, not on negative claims about the operator’s priorities or attitudes toward other localities. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The operator values its own convenience over consumer needs. II. The operator is indifferent to Sant Colony’s aspirations. Concept / Approach: An assumption must be necessary for the appeal to make sense. To ask for a route extension, one need not assume any hostility or misplaced priorities by the company; one merely believes the extension would increase convenience for users. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The appeal expresses a desired change to improve convenience; it does not evaluate the company’s values or attitudes.2) The request would remain entirely sensible even if the company highly valued consumers and cared about Sant Colony; therefore I and II are not required.3) Hence neither I nor II is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If the operator were consumer-centric, residents would still appeal for extension. If the operator were attentive to Sant Colony, the appeal’s logic does not change. Thus the appeal does not depend on either assumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: add unnecessary, negative claims. Either: still unnecessary. Both: least justified. Common Pitfalls: Projecting grievances into neutral user requests; appeals can be made without presupposing ill intent. Final Answer: Neither I nor II are implicit.

Question 18

Statement: "Fly X Airways whenever you decide to go places. Our fares are less than train fares." — an advertisement. Assumptions: I. People prefer to travel by air when the fares are reasonably low. II. Other airlines charge higher fares than X Air…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal reasoning item tests whether an assumption is a necessary, tacit belief underlying an advertisement's persuasion. The ad says: "Fly X Airways… Our fares are less than train fares." The persuasive move is: because airfares are lower than train fares, you should choose this airline for your travel. We must find which hidden beliefs must be true for the pitch to work. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement compares X Airways' fares with train fares. Goal is to motivate people to fly X instead of taking the train. No information is given about other airlines' prices. Concept / Approach: In statement–assumption questions, an assumption is implicit if, without it, the argument loses its force. We check which options are required for the reasoning to be persuasive, not merely compatible. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The ad appeals to lower cost versus trains to persuade switching to air travel.2) This presupposes that many people will prefer air if it becomes cheaper or comparably priced — i.e., price sensitivity affects the mode choice.3) Assumption I captures exactly that: people prefer to travel by air when fares are reasonable.4) Assumption II talks about other airlines being costlier than X. The ad never references other airlines; the comparison is airline vs train, not airline vs airline.5) Therefore, II is not necessary to make the persuasion work. Verification / Alternative check: Even if others have identical or cheaper fares, the statement still persuades against trains based on air-versus-train pricing. Hence II is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Not referenced or needed. Either I or II: II is irrelevant; I is needed. Neither: I is required for price-based persuasion. Both: II adds nothing necessary. Common Pitfalls: Confusing sufficiency with necessity: that II might help marketing does not make it an assumption of this argument. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: "To keep myself up to date, I always listen to the 9:00 p.m. news on radio," says a candidate to an interview board. Assumptions: I. The candidate does not read newspapers. II. Only radio broadcasts the most recent news.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks whether we can distinguish what a speaker actually presupposes from what is merely possible. The candidate claims a habit: listening to the 9:00 p.m. radio news keeps them up to date. We must identify assumptions without overreading the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Speaker listens to radio news at a fixed time to stay updated. No explicit claim about newspapers or exclusivity of radio. Concept / Approach: An assumption is necessary for the statement’s point. Possibilities are not assumptions. We test each proposed assumption by asking: if it were false, would the statement lose sense? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Assumption I: "The candidate does not read newspapers."2) Even if the candidate also reads newspapers, they may still "always listen" to the 9 p.m. news to stay current. The statement remains meaningful.3) Assumption II: "Only radio broadcasts recent news."4) The claim is not about exclusivity; it is about a chosen method. TV, web, and newspapers might also provide updates. The statement still stands. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute counterfactuals: If the candidate both reads newspapers and listens to the radio, the statement remains true. If other media also carry recent news, the statement still makes sense as a personal routine. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Not necessary. Only II: Not necessary. Either / Both: Overstate what the statement requires. Common Pitfalls: Assuming exclusivity when the statement indicates preference or habit, not a logical monopoly. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: There has been a remarkable increase in air traffic in India during the past few years. Assumptions: I. Air travel has now become a status symbol. II. A large number of people are now able to afford air travel.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement notes a sustained, remarkable rise in air traffic volume. We must identify which assumption is necessary to reasonably explain the increase without adding extraneous claims about social signaling or prestige. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed fact: air traffic has grown strongly. No explicit mention of status, branding, or cultural aspiration. India-specific context; affordability and access have been changing. Concept / Approach: For an assumption to be implicit, it should be a required underpinning of the inference from fact to explanation or recommendation. We ask: what must be true for increased traffic to be plausible nationwide? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If more people can afford air travel (II), rising traffic is naturally explained: price reductions, income growth, competition, and connectivity expand demand.2) The "status symbol" claim (I) may sometimes influence choices but is not necessary. Traffic could rise due to lowered fares, more routes, or business expansion without any prestige-driven motive.3) The observation itself neither mentions nor relies on social-status dynamics. Verification / Alternative check: Even if air travel is not a status symbol, affordability and availability alone can still cause large increases in passengers. Therefore I is not required, while II provides a necessary, general explanation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: Prestige is not required to explain growth. Either / Both: I is not necessary. Neither: II is plausibly necessary to undergird nationwide growth. Common Pitfalls: Confusing possible causes with necessary assumptions. A trend can be explained by affordability without invoking status. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions