Question 1

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Statement: Without reforming the entire administrative system, we cannot eradicate corruption and prejudice from society. Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item examines the hidden beliefs behind a policy claim that comprehensive administrative reform is necessary to eradicate corruption and prejudice. Determine which assumptions the author must hold for the statement to be meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:I: The existence of corruption and prejudice is good.II: There is enough flexibility to change (reform) the administrative system.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption must be something that the author believes to be true to justify the recommendation. It cannot contradict the stated intention and should be necessary for the recommendation's feasibility or relevance.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The author wants to eradicate corruption and prejudice, clearly viewing them as undesirable. So assumption I (that their existence is good) clashes with the statement's goal and cannot be implicit.2) The recommendation presumes reform is possible; otherwise the prescription is pointless. Thus, the system can indeed be changed or has sufficient flexibility (assumption II).3) If assumption II were false (system cannot be reformed), the statement loses practical value.Verification / Alternative check:Negate assumption II: 'There is no flexibility to reform.' Then the statement becomes unrealistic. Negate assumption I: 'Corruption and prejudice are bad.' This aligns with the statement, so I is not an assumption but a consistent belief and certainly not 'existence is good.'Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I is implicit / Both: I contradicts the goal.Either I or II: Only II is necessary.Neither: II is required for feasibility.Common Pitfalls:Do not confuse a value judgment expressed or implied by the statement (that corruption is bad) with the absurd contrary assumption offered as a distractor. Always test by negation to see which assumption is indispensable.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 2

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Statement: The civic authority advises residents to use mosquito repellents or sleep inside nets, since many people are suffering from malaria. Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public-health advisories rely on tacit beliefs about citizens' ability and willingness to act. Here, the authority recommends repellents or nets to curb malaria exposure. Identify which assumption(s) make the advice sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Local residents have enough money to arrange for repellents or nets.II: People may ignore and continue to get mosquito bites as they have other pressing needs.Concept / Approach:An assumption should be necessary for the advice to be practical or impactful. A mere pessimistic possibility (II) is not required for issuing the advice. Feasibility (I) typically underlies such recommendations.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The authority issues advice expecting people to implement it; implicit is that residents can realistically procure repellents/nets (financially or access-wise). Otherwise, the advice lacks utility.2) Assumption II posits that people may ignore the advice due to competing needs. That may be true, but it is not required for issuing the advisory; the authority is not assuming non-compliance.3) Therefore, only I is necessary to preserve the advice's practicality.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'Residents cannot afford repellents/nets.' Then the advisory becomes ineffective. Negate II: 'People will not ignore the advice.' The advisory still stands, so II is not needed.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both: II is not required to justify the advisory.Either I or II: Both are not interchangeable; I is specifically needed.Neither: I is indeed necessary for feasibility.Common Pitfalls:Do not treat conceivable outcomes (some may ignore advice) as assumptions. Assumptions must be indispensable supports for the speaker's action or claim.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 3

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Statement: Vitamin E tablets improve circulation and keep your complexion glowing. Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement is persuasive, linking Vitamin E to improved circulation and a glowing complexion. We must uncover the assumptions that make this message appealing and coherent to the audience.Given Data / Assumptions:I: People like a glowing complexion.II: Complexion becomes dull in the absence of circulation.Concept / Approach:For an advertisement-like claim, one essential assumption is that the benefit offered (glowing complexion) is desirable. A second, overly strong medical assertion (II) goes beyond what is necessary; 'absence of circulation' would be fatal rather than cosmetic and is not required to support the claim.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The message aims to motivate purchase; thus, it presumes the audience values a 'glowing complexion' (Assumption I).2) The causal chain implied is: Vitamin E → better circulation → glowing complexion. This suggests improved circulation contributes to complexion quality, but it does not require the extreme notion that without circulation complexion becomes dull (Assumption II as phrased).3) Therefore, I is necessary for persuasiveness; II is an exaggerated formulation and not required.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'People do not care about complexion.' Then the appeal collapses. Negate II: 'Even if lack of circulation did not necessarily dull complexion,' the promise 'improves circulation and keeps complexion glowing' can still be attractive; hence II is unnecessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II or Both: II is not needed and is poorly framed.Either I or II / Neither: I is clearly required to make the message relevant.Common Pitfalls:Avoid accepting overstatements as assumptions. The test often includes a scientifically awkward or absolute claim to distract you from the minimal necessary assumption.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 4

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Advertisement: 'Ensure a good night's sleep for your family with safe and effective X mosquito coil.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Advertisements rely on what the audience already desires and believe. Here, the claim connects product use to 'a good night's sleep.' Identify which assumptions must be true for the message to persuade.Given Data / Assumptions:I: X mosquito coil is better than any other mosquito coil.II: A good night's sleep is desirable.Concept / Approach:An ad does not need to assume absolute superiority over all competitors unless it states so. It does assume that the promised benefit is something the audience wants.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The ad promises 'good night's sleep' via X coil. For relevance, it presumes the target values good sleep (II).2) It says 'safe and effective,' not 'best of all.' Hence I (absolute superiority) is not required.3) Even if competitors are equally good, the ad still makes sense; thus I is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: 'People do not desire good sleep.' Then the pitch is unpersuasive. Negate I: 'X is not better than all others.' The ad can still stand; it may simply be one effective option.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Both / Either: I is an unnecessary exaggeration.Neither: II is clearly required to motivate purchase.Common Pitfalls:Do not treat marketing puffery as a logical necessity unless explicitly stated. Focus on the minimal beliefs that make the appeal relevant to consumers.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 5

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Message from a Director: 'Please do not wait for me; I may be late. Start lunch as soon as the guests arrive.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This managerial instruction prioritizes guest experience over the director's presence. We must extract the necessary assumptions that justify starting lunch without the host.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Keeping guests waiting is not desirable.II: Lunch may not be ready in time.Concept / Approach:The directive aims to avoid delay for guests if the director is late. It presupposes that hospitality favors not keeping guests waiting, not that the food will be late.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The instruction to begin lunch upon guests' arrival, regardless of the director's presence, rests on the belief that guests should not be made to wait (Assumption I).2) The readiness of lunch (II) is unrelated; the message says start when guests arrive, not when lunch is ready. Hence II is not implied.3) Therefore only I is required.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'It is fine to keep guests waiting.' Then the instruction loses its rationale. Negate II: 'Lunch will be ready on time.' The instruction still makes sense; director's lateness, not meal readiness, drives the message.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either: II does not follow from the text.Neither: I clearly underlies the request.Common Pitfalls:Do not infer unrelated logistical concerns. Focus on what must be true for the timing instruction to be courteous and sensible.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 6

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Statement: 'If you have any problems, bring them to me.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A general offer of help is made: 'If you have any problems, bring them to me.' We test which hidden beliefs are necessary for such an offer.Given Data / Assumptions:I: You have some problems.II: I can solve any problem.Concept / Approach:Conditional offers ('if-then') do not assume the antecedent is true; they simply address the contingency. Nor must the speaker be omnipotent; offering to help does not entail the ability to solve every possible problem.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The phrase 'If you have any problems' does not presuppose that the listener actually has problems now. It merely covers the case where they do.2) 'Bring them to me' expresses willingness to address issues. It does not assert universal competence for 'any' problem in an absolute sense.3) Hence neither I nor II is logically required.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'You have no problems.' The offer remains sensible for future possibilities. Negate II: 'I cannot solve every problem, though I can try or direct you.' The statement can still reasonably be made.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Both / Either: All wrongly impose necessities not entailed by a conditional, courteous offer.Common Pitfalls:Do not misread 'any' as a claim of limitless ability. In everyday speech, it communicates openness to help, not omnipotence.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 7

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Letter to candidates for a written exam: 'You have to bear your expenses on travel, etc.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The organizer clarifies that candidates must pay their own travel expenses. We must determine which background beliefs make this clarification necessary.Given Data / Assumptions:I: If not clarified, all candidates may claim reimbursement of expenses.II: Many organizations reimburse travel expenses to candidates called for written examinations.Concept / Approach:An assumption is needed if, without it, the sentence would be redundant or pointless. Clarification is useful when there is a risk of misunderstanding or contrary expectation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The line is included to prevent claims for reimbursement. Hence assumption I (a risk of such claims) must be true.2) While II may explain why candidates might expect reimbursement (industry practice), it is not strictly necessary; even if few organizations reimburse, some candidates could still claim. The organizer need only assume a risk of claims, not a widespread norm.3) Therefore, only I is indispensable.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'No candidate would claim reimbursement.' Then the sentence is needless. Negate II: 'Few organizations reimburse.' The sentence may still be necessary to avoid even sporadic claims.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either: II is explanatory but not required.Neither: I clearly underpins the need for clarification.Common Pitfalls:Avoid assuming that an industry-wide practice must exist to justify a disclaimer; the organizer’s concern is preventing claims in this specific process.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 8

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) News: The State Government has abolished concessional air tickets for students. Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy reversals typically rest on beliefs about necessity and affordability. Here, the concession is abolished. We must identify what the government likely assumes for this to be acceptable.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Students will not travel by air in future.II: Students who do travel by air can bear the full expense of air tickets.Concept / Approach:An assumption must support the decision. Eliminating a subsidy commonly assumes beneficiaries can manage without it or that it is not essential for the target group.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The abolition does not presume that students will never fly (I); travel demand may continue.2) The move makes sense if policymakers believe that student flyers can afford the fares without concessions, or that financial support is unnecessary (II).3) Hence only II underlies the decision.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: 'Student flyers cannot afford full fares.' Then abolishing concessions would be harmful and controversial, undermining the decision. Negate I: 'Students will still fly.' The policy could still stand if they can afford it, so I is not necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Both / Either: I is not needed and is unrealistic.Neither: II is required to justify the cut.Common Pitfalls:Do not confuse 'policy will reduce usage' with an assumption that usage becomes zero. The key is affordability and lack of need for subsidy.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 9

Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Advertisement: 'To buy an X TV, contact Y — the sole agent of X TV.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The ad directs buyers to a specific seller identified as the sole agent. We must decide what beliefs make this call-to-action reasonable.Given Data / Assumptions:I: People generally prefer to buy TV through a sole agent (or will follow such exclusive sourcing).II: TV manufacturers do not sell directly.Concept / Approach:The advertiser wants prospects to contact Y. That presumes consumers are willing to purchase via the sole agent channel or regard sole agency as legitimate/advantageous. It need not assert anything about direct manufacturer sales.Step-by-Step Solution:1) By highlighting 'sole agent,' the ad signals exclusivity and reliability, expecting buyers to see Y as the appropriate point of purchase (Assumption I).2) Whether manufacturers also sell directly (II) is irrelevant; even if they do, the ad can still funnel buyers to Y.3) Therefore, only I is necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: 'People avoid sole agents.' Then the ad’s appeal fails. Negate II: 'Manufacturers sometimes sell directly.' The directive still makes sense as an option or the exclusive local channel.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Both / Either: II is not required for the call-to-action.Neither: I is needed to make the directive effective.Common Pitfalls:Avoid importing industry structure claims (like 'no direct sales') unless the statement depends on them. The ad’s goal is to channel intent, not define the whole distribution model.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 10

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Why do you not invite Anthony for the Christmas party this year?” Assumptions under test: I. Anthony is not from the same city. II. Unless he is invited, Anthony will not attend the party.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is an assumptions question from verbal reasoning. We are given a speaker's suggestion about inviting Anthony to a Christmas party and two possible hidden beliefs (assumptions). The task is to identify which assumption(s) must be true for the suggestion to make sense. In assumption problems, we do not add external facts; we only consider what the speaker must be presuming for the statement to be meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: “Why do you not invite Anthony for the Christmas party this year?”Assumption I: Anthony is not from the same city.Assumption II: Unless invited, Anthony will not attend the party.Concept / Approach:An assumption is implicit if the statement depends on it; without it, the statement would lose force or purpose.Suggestions about invitations normally presuppose that invitations are required for attendance.City of residence is irrelevant unless it is directly tied to the reason for (not) inviting him.Step-by-Step Solution:Analyze the speech act: The speaker urges an invitation, which presumes the act of inviting influences attendance.Assumption II fits: if invitations are unnecessary, the suggestion is pointless. The speaker must be presuming that Anthony will not attend unless invited.Assumption I about Anthony's city is neither required nor hinted. One may invite a person regardless of city; distance may matter in logistics but is not entailed by the suggestion.Verification / Alternative check:Remove Assumption II: If Anthony would attend without invitation, the suggestion loses purpose. Hence II is necessary.Remove Assumption I: The suggestion still makes sense even if Anthony lives in the same city. Hence I is not necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only assumption I is implicit — incorrect; city is irrelevant to the act of inviting.Either I or II — incorrect; only II is required.Neither I nor II — incorrect; II is clearly needed.Both I and II — incorrect; I is not necessary.Common Pitfalls:Importing extraneous facts (e.g., travel constraints). Focus only on what makes the suggestion logically purposeful.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 11

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: Sachin wrote to his brother in Bangalore to personally collect the Post-graduation Mathematics application form from the University. Assumptions under test: I. The University may issue forms to someone oth…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement describes Sachin instructing his brother (located in Bangalore) to collect an application form personally. We must identify the hidden premises without which this action would be futile. In assumption questions, an assumption is implicit if the action in the statement depends logically on it being true.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Request to brother to collect the form personally.Assumption I: The University may issue forms to someone other than the applicant.Assumption II: The brother will receive the letter before the deadline to collect forms.Concept / Approach:If an action is advised, it presupposes feasibility and timeliness.Therefore, two conditions are necessary: authorization (form can be issued to a proxy) and time feasibility (instruction reaches before the cut-off).Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I: If the University refuses to issue forms to anyone except the candidate, asking the brother to collect is pointless. Hence I is required.Assumption II: If the letter will reach after the last date, the instruction is useless. Therefore II is required for the instruction to be meaningful.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: Action becomes infeasible.Remove II: Action becomes untimely. In both cases, the original statement loses purpose, confirming both assumptions are implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II — each alone is insufficient because feasibility and timeliness are both essential.Either I or II — incorrect; both are needed.Neither — clearly false since at least one necessary premise exists.Common Pitfalls:Confusing what is merely helpful with what is logically required for the action to make sense.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 12

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Instruction: “Apply nets on windows to prevent mosquitoes from entering the house.” Assumptions under test: I. Entry of mosquitoes from other openings (not windows) is desirable. II. Nets are not available to apply o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This prompt is a typical “what is assumed” problem about an instruction. The directive recommends fitting nets on windows to block mosquitoes. We must decide whether two extra statements are silently presumed by this instruction. Remember: an assumption must be necessary for the instruction to be sensible, not merely possible or convenient.Given Data / Assumptions:Instruction: Use nets on windows.Assumption I: Allowing mosquitoes through other openings is desirable.Assumption II: No nets are available for doors.Concept / Approach:An instruction targeted at a major entry point (windows) does not imply approval of other entry routes.Nor does it assert a non-availability of alternatives (e.g., door nets). It simply focuses on a common or significant source.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: From “apply nets on windows,” it does not follow that letting mosquitoes in via doors or vents is desirable. The instruction is preventive, not permissive. I is not necessary.Assess II: The statement never comments on doors. Recommending window nets in no way presupposes the absence of door nets. II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Even if door nets exist and even if other entries are also blocked, the instruction remains meaningful. The advice does not depend on I or II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I, Only II, Either, or Both — all incorrect because neither assumption is required for the advice to be useful.Common Pitfalls:Over-reading exclusivity into a specific recommendation. Specific advice does not exclude other protective measures.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 13

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Among all the articles, personal computers show the highest price decline from June 2005 to December 2005.” Assumptions under test: I. Comparative prices of all articles in June and December 2005 were ava…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement ranks the decline in prices of personal computers as the largest when comparing June 2005 with December 2005, across “all the articles.” To make such a comparative and time-bound claim, certain premises must be in place. We must identify the assumptions without which this claim cannot be justified.Given Data / Assumptions:Reference months: June 2005 and December 2005.Scope: all articles, with personal computers showing the highest decline.Assumption I: Data for all articles at both times exists.Assumption II: PC prices in June exceeded PC prices in December (there was an actual decline).Concept / Approach:Comparative superlative (“highest decline”) requires comparable figures across the entire set and the two time points.To assert a decline for PCs, June price must be greater than December price for PCs.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: Without price data for all articles in both months, one cannot conclude which article had the greatest decline. Hence I is necessary.Assess II: A “decline” specifically from June to December implies the December price for PCs is lower than the June price. Hence II is also necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: The ranking across all articles becomes baseless.Remove II: If PC prices did not drop, the claim collapses. Therefore both are required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II — each alone is insufficient to sustain a comparative superlative over time.Either I or II — incorrect since both are logically needed.Neither — contradicted by the reasoning above.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring the difference between a simple claim of decline and a superlative (“highest”) claim that requires a complete comparison set.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 14

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Most people who stop smoking gain weight.” Assumptions under test: I. If one stops smoking, one will gain weight. II. If one does not stop smoking, one will not gain weight.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement uses the quantifier “most,” which means “a majority but not all.” Assumption questions often test whether you mistakenly convert a probabilistic or majority claim into an absolute rule. Here we examine two absolute statements to see if the original sentence depends on either of them being true.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: “Most people who stop smoking gain weight.”Assumption I: If anyone stops smoking, they will gain weight (universal claim).Assumption II: If one does not stop smoking, one will not gain weight (converse negative claim).Concept / Approach:“Most” does not equal “all,” and it does not imply the converse for the complementary set.To be implicit, an assumption must be necessary for the statement to hold.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: The statement allows exceptions (some quitters may not gain weight). Therefore it does not depend on a universal rule that every quitter will gain weight. I is not necessary.Assess II: The statement makes no claim about people who continue smoking. They may gain or not gain weight for other reasons. II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Model with numbers: If out of 100 quitters, 60 gain and 40 do not, the statement “most” is true without either I or II being true.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Both — all incorrectly convert a “most” statement into absolutes or into an unrelated converse claim.Common Pitfalls:Illicit conversion and overgeneralization of statistical statements to universal laws.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 15

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Please consult us before making any investment decision.” Assumptions under test: I. Without consultation, you may take a wrong decision. II. It is important to take a right decision.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement is advisory: it urges consultation before deciding about investments. Advisory statements usually rest on (a) a risk of error without the advice and (b) the value of achieving a correct outcome. We examine whether these two assumptions are necessary for the advice to be meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:Advice: “Consult us first.”Assumption I: Absence of consultation increases the risk of a wrong decision.Assumption II: Making the right decision matters (has significant consequences).Concept / Approach:Advice presupposes both a potential downside (error) and a goal (correctness).If either is denied, the advice loses force or relevance.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: If you cannot make a wrong decision without consulting, then consultation is unnecessary. Thus I is implicit.Assess II: If right vs. wrong decisions are unimportant, urging extra care is meaningless. Thus II is also implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I or II: In either case, the advisory loses rational motivation, confirming that both are required premises.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II — each alone does not fully justify the necessity of consultation.Either I or II — incorrect; both are needed.Neither — contradicted by the nature of the advice.Common Pitfalls:Forgetting that advice implies both risk and value; otherwise, there is no reason to follow it.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 16

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: The PTA informs the Principal: “We will not send our children to school unless the school authority reduces the fees with immediate effect.” Assumptions under test: I. A majority of parents may agree and k…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The PTA issues a conditional threat: nonattendance unless fees are reduced immediately. For such a pressure tactic to be meaningful, certain premises must hold: the threat must be enforceable (collective parent action) and there must be a reasonable belief that the school could yield to the pressure. We test both assumptions accordingly.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Conditional boycott tied to an immediate fee reduction demand.Assumption I: A significant number of parents will comply with the PTA call, creating real leverage.Assumption II: The school authority may respond by reducing fees if faced with the boycott.Concept / Approach:Threat effectiveness relies on (a) capacity to impose a cost (collective action) and (b) a plausible concession from the target.If either element is missing, the statement becomes hollow or irrational.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I: If only a tiny fraction would act, the threat lacks substance. The PTA must assume wide support; hence I is implicit.Assumption II: If the school is certain never to concede, the ultimatum would be futile. The PTA's move presumes a chance of success; hence II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: No leverage → empty threat.Remove II: No plausible outcome → self-defeating strategy. Therefore both are required premises of the tactic.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II — each alone leaves the threat either toothless or purposeless.Either / Neither — inconsistent with rational collective bargaining logic embedded in the statement.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that a threat needs only participation or only compliance; in practice, both leverage and a plausible concession are presumed.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 17

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Instruction to invigilators: “Those appearing for this examination for the first time should be helped in filling up the form.” Assumptions under test: I. The application form is somewhat complicated. II. Candidates …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:An instruction asks staff to assist first-time candidates with form filling. We must uncover the necessary premises supporting this directive. Typically, help is mandated when (1) the task is not trivial, and (2) the category “first time” is meaningful (repeat appearances exist).Given Data / Assumptions:Instruction: Help first-timers fill the form.Assumption I: The form is complex enough to warrant help.Assumption II: The exam permits multiple attempts; therefore “first time” identifies a subgroup.Concept / Approach:A directive to help implies anticipated difficulty for that group.Referring to “first time” implies repeatability of attempts.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: If the form were trivial, a blanket instruction to assist newcomers is unnecessary. Hence I is implicit.Assess II: The phrase “first time” has significance only if a candidate can appear more than once. Hence II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: The instruction appears redundant.Remove II: The category “first time” would be meaningless. Therefore both are required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II — incomplete depiction of the premises supporting the directive.Either / Neither — inconsistent with the language used.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking how administrative instructions reveal complexity and repeatability assumptions.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 18

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Success is how much a person bounces up after hitting the bottom.” Assumptions under test: I. Success requires conscious effort and persistence without being discouraged by failure. II. Failure cannot be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This aphorism equates success with resilience after failure (“hitting the bottom”). The hidden premise is about the virtue of persistence. We must check which assumptions are necessary for this definition to be meaningful and which go beyond it.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement focuses on “bounce back” — recovery/persistence after setbacks.Assumption I: Success involves sustained effort in spite of failure.Assumption II: Failure is wholly unacceptable.Concept / Approach:The statement valorizes learning from and rebounding after failure; it does not condemn failure per se.Thus, persistence (I) is required, while an absolute rejection of failure (II) is not.Step-by-Step Solution:Interpretation: “How much you bounce up” presupposes perseverance. Without persistence, there is no bounce. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II claims failure cannot be acceptable. But the saying actually incorporates failure as part of the success story. Therefore II is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If we remove I (persistence), the definition collapses. If we remove II, the statement still holds, as it treats failure as a setup for rebound, not as a taboo.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II — contradicts the spirit of the quote.Either/Neither/Both — misread the proverb's emphasis on resilience.Common Pitfalls:Equating acknowledgment of failure with endorsing it; here failure is a stage, not an end-state.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 19

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Employment notice clause: “The company has the right to reject any application without furnishing reasons while shortlisting candidates for interview.” Assumptions under test: I. It is desirable to call only eligible…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:An employment notice reserves to the company the discretion to reject applications without giving reasons at the shortlisting stage. We must identify which premise(s) are necessary for such a clause to be present. Typically, shortlisting aims to limit interviews to suitable candidates to save time and resources; however, this clause itself does not prove impartiality.Given Data / Assumptions:Clause: Company may reject applications without reasons during screening.Assumption I: Interviewing only eligible/suitable candidates is desirable (hence the need to screen rigorously).Assumption II: The company practices impartiality in all functions.Concept / Approach:A shortlisting clause presupposes a need to filter applications to those deemed suitable.However, the presence of a discretionary rejection clause does not logically imply impartiality; it could be neutral or even permit subjectivity.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess I: If it were not desirable to call only suitable candidates, there would be no reason to screen or reserve discretion. Thus I is implicit.Assess II: The clause neither mentions nor guarantees impartiality; it actually asserts unilateral discretion. Therefore II is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: The clause loses operational purpose (screening becomes pointless). Remove II: The clause still stands; impartiality is not a necessary premise.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II — unsupported by the wording.Either / Neither / Both — each mischaracterizes the logical dependence of the clause.Common Pitfalls:Confusing organizational aspirations (impartiality) with operational necessities (shortlisting desirability).Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 20

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: The government has set up a fact-finding mission to look into the possible reasons for the recent violence in the area. Assumptions: I. The mission may be able to come up with credible information…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This question tests assumption recognition in critical reasoning. A public authority has launched a fact-finding mission after violence. We must decide which unstated beliefs must be true for the action (setting up a mission) to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:A mission is set up to investigate reasons for recent violence.Assumption I: the mission can obtain credible information.Assumption II: people will cooperate and share details.Concept / Approach:In assumption questions, an implicit assumption is a belief that must hold for the stated action or advice to be rational. If an authority creates an inquiry team, the team must (a) be capable of discovering facts and (b) receive cooperation from stakeholders; otherwise the initiative would be purposeless.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate Assumption I: If a mission were incapable of gathering credible information, launching it would waste resources. Thus, the government necessarily presumes the mission can unearth reliable facts. I is implicit.2) Evaluate Assumption II: Investigations into community violence depend on eyewitnesses, victims, and local informants. Without some level of cooperation, investigative output would be weak. Therefore, the government presumes at least a reasonable chance of public cooperation. II is implicit.3) Since both conditions underpin the usefulness of the mission, both assumptions are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: “The mission cannot obtain credible information.” Then launching it is irrational. Negate II: “People will not cooperate at all.” Again, the mission becomes ineffective. The statement collapses when either is negated, confirming both are required assumptions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: ignores the other necessary pillar of a meaningful inquiry.Either I or II: both, not just one, are jointly needed.Neither: contradicts the practical rationale behind forming such missions.Common Pitfalls:Confusing what is absolutely guaranteed with what must be reasonably expected. Assumptions require reasonable expectation, not certainty.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter