Question 1

Statement — “Please consult me before making any decision on company exports.” Assumptions: I. Without consultation, you may take a wrong decision. II. It is important to take the right decision on exports.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A directive to consult before deciding implies two beliefs: consultation reduces error, and the decision’s correctness materially matters. Otherwise, the instruction would be unnecessary.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Consult before export decisions.Assumption I: Lack of consultation increases the risk of a wrong decision.Assumption II: Taking a right decision is important for exports.Concept / Approach:Assumptions are minimal conditions under which the advice is rational. If errors were inconsequential, or consultation did not improve outcomes, the directive has no force.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Purpose of consultation is risk reduction → supports I.2) The domain (exports) is sensitive; success requires correct choices → supports II.3) Both are necessary to motivate the instruction.Verification / Alternative check:If wrong decisions had no cost, or consultation added no value, the directive would be pointless—contradicting the statement’s rationale.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or Only II: each alone fails to capture the full rationale. Either: both are not substitutes. Neither: contradicts the utility of consultation.Common Pitfalls:Treating “importance” as mere truism. Here, it is functionally necessary to motivate the request.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit.

Question 2

Statement — “KLM has decided to raise resources by issuing a mix of tax-free and taxable bonds.” Assumptions: I. KLM has already explored other fund-raising sources. II. KLM’s products face little competition in the market.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Corporate financing decisions can be justified by many factors (cost, timing, investor appetite). We must test which assumptions are indispensable to the decision announcement.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: KLM will issue both tax-free and taxable bonds to raise resources.Assumption I: KLM already explored other sources.Assumption II: KLM’s products have little competition.Concept / Approach:The statement merely communicates the chosen vehicle for raising funds. It does not rely on prior exploration of alternatives, nor on product-market competition facts. Financing choice can be made regardless.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify necessity: Does the choice of bonds require proof that other sources were explored? No.2) Does it require low product competition? No; funding needs are independent of product rivalry.3) Therefore neither assumption is essential.Verification / Alternative check:Even if other sources were not explored, a firm may still prefer bonds. Competition intensity does not logically determine the financing instrument in the announcement.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or Only II: neither is necessary. Either/Both: overstate what the statement presupposes.Common Pitfalls:Reading causal stories into neutral announcements. An assumption must be required for the statement’s sense, not merely plausible.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement — “Given stiff competition and a precarious financial position, top posts should be kept open for outside professionals rather than internal candidates.” Assumptions: I. Internal candidates seek promotions without much contribution. II. Ex…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:When a policy recommends recruiting outsiders over insiders, it typically assumes outsiders bring capabilities needed to address current challenges. It need not malign insiders as non-contributors.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Prefer outside professionals at the top given competition and fragile finances.Assumption I: Insiders mainly want promotions without contributing.Assumption II: Experienced outsiders can better tackle the problems.Concept / Approach:A decision in favor of outsiders requires faith in their superior fit for present problems (Assumption II). It does not require a negative generalization about insiders (Assumption I).Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the minimum belief that makes the recommendation rational → II.2) I is an unnecessary (and extreme) characterization; the policy can stand without it.Verification / Alternative check:Even if insiders are capable contributors, management may still believe an outsider brings fresh crisis-handling experience—sustaining the recommendation.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: baseless negativity about insiders is not needed. Either/Both: overstate. Neither: contradicts the rationale.Common Pitfalls:Treating preference for outsiders as an indictment of insiders. The assumption is comparative, not accusatory.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 4

Statement — “Lack of stimulation in the first four to five years of life can have adverse consequences.” Assumptions: I. A large part of observed intelligence develops in the earliest years of life. II. About 50% of measurable intelligence at age 17…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement ties early-life stimulation to later outcomes. It presupposes that early years are critical for cognitive development, but it need not rely on a specific percentage or test statistic.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Lack of stimulation in years 0–5 can lead to adverse consequences.Assumption I: A substantial portion of intelligence develops early.Assumption II: A precise 50% of intelligence at 17 is predictable by age four.Concept / Approach:Assumptions should be necessary, not hyper-specific. The statement needs the general criticality of early years (I), not an exact quantitative claim (II).Step-by-Step Solution:1) If early years were not crucial, lack of stimulation would not be especially harmful.2) Therefore I is necessary.3) The 50% figure in II is an illustrative statistic; it is not required for the statement to make sense.Verification / Alternative check:Replace 50% with 40% or 60%; the statement still stands. Thus II is not essential, confirming only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II: too specific. Either/Both: overreach. Neither: denies the early-year importance implied.Common Pitfalls:Confusing supportive data with assumptions. Necessary ≠ numeric detail.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Statement — “Take this X-brand oven home and you can prepare very tasty dishes which you were unable to prepare earlier.” (Advertisement) Assumptions: I. The user knows or can follow recipes for tasty dishes but lacked a suitable oven earlier. II. O…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Promotional statements often attribute improved outcomes to the product. Here, the ad claims that owning the oven enables dishes previously not prepared—suggesting equipment was the limiting factor, not knowledge.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: With X-brand oven, you can now make dishes you could not make earlier.Assumption I: The user can follow recipes/has ingredients but lacked a suitable oven.Assumption II: Only X-brand ovens can make very tasty dishes.Concept / Approach:The usefulness of the ad rests on the oven removing the earlier constraint. It does not need exclusivity (that only X can do it); claiming exclusivity would be an unnecessary exaggeration.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If the user had no recipe knowledge or interest, the oven alone would not ensure success; the ad presumes capability but missing equipment.2) Therefore I is necessary.3) II is too strong; other brands may also bake well. The ad sells capability, not uniqueness-of-brand.Verification / Alternative check:Even if other ovens work, the claim “with this oven you can do it” remains coherent. Thus II is not required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: overstate. Neither: contradicts the ad’s causal logic.Common Pitfalls:Reading exclusivity into capability claims.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 6

Statement — “The university will display results only on the Internet rather than on main notice boards.” Assumptions: I. All enrolled students have Internet access at home. II. Earlier, most students referred to results on both Internet and notice …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy changes about result display media require some accessibility assumptions, but not necessarily “at home” access or historical dual-check behavior.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Results will be displayed only online.Assumption I: All students have home Internet.Assumption II: Previously, most students used both channels.Concept / Approach:The shift to online-only does not require “home” access (labs, libraries, cyber cafes suffice) nor does it hinge on prior usage of both channels by “most” students. The statement merely sets the new channel.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Test necessity of I: If students can access campus internet or phones, “home internet” is unnecessary.2) Test necessity of II: Past behavior is not required to justify the new policy.3) Therefore, neither assumption is essential.Verification / Alternative check:Even if many lacked home internet, central labs could still make the policy workable.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either/Both all introduce details not needed for the simple announcement.Common Pitfalls:Equating “online-only” with “home internet for all.” Accessibility does not equal household connectivity.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 7

Statement — “A leading NGO decided to open a library with books and newspapers of major publishers in a remote village.” Assumptions: I. All nearby villages already have similar libraries. II. There is an adequate number of literate people in the vi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Establishing a library presupposes sufficient potential users (literate readers). It does not depend on what neighboring villages possess.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Open a library with broad coverage of publishers in a remote village.Assumption I: Neighboring villages already have libraries.Assumption II: The target village has enough literate people to benefit.Concept / Approach:An action becomes reasonable when its intended beneficiaries exist; hence II is necessary. I describes external parity and is irrelevant to the action’s viability.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the intended users: literate villagers → need sufficient numbers.2) Neighboring infrastructure does not determine this decision’s logic.Verification / Alternative check:Even if no nearby village has a library, establishing the first one still makes sense given literacy.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both: insert unnecessary assumptions. Neither: ignores the minimal user-base requirement.Common Pitfalls:Assuming decisions are based on regional parity rather than local need.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 8

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Prudent lending requires information. The directive to “always check” presupposes that (a) checking is informative and (b) unverified declarations can be unreliable.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Banks must check financial status before lending.Assumption I: The check meaningfully reveals true financials.Assumption II: Clients may sometimes misstate their ability to repay.Concept / Approach:If checks did not improve the bank’s knowledge or if clients were always fully accurate, the insistence on checking would be unnecessary.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Necessity of I: Without informative checks, the policy lacks benefit.2) Necessity of II: If clients always present a correct picture, extra checks would be redundant.Verification / Alternative check:Real-world experience of adverse selection and information asymmetry supports both assumptions as the minimal rationale for the rule.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: understate. Neither: contradicts the policy’s rationale.Common Pitfalls:Assuming “check” is bureaucratic; in lending, it is a risk-control requirement.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The proposal targets illegal mining as an environmental threat. It does not make claims about the harmlessness of legal mining; it only assumes mining contributes to environmental harm, and illegal operations are particularly damaging.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Enforce a total ban on illegal mining to protect the environment.Assumption I: Legal mining is harmless.Assumption II: Mining contributes to environmental degradation.Concept / Approach:For the recommendation to be meaningful, mining (especially illegal mining) must be a significant environmental factor (II). Claiming legal mining is harmless (I) is unnecessary to justify banning the illegal variety.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The action focuses on illegality and associated harm.2) The necessity is that mining can degrade the environment → II.3) I is not required; legal mining may still have impacts but be regulated.Verification / Alternative check:Even if legal mining has some impact, curbing illegal mining can still reduce harm.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both: add an unnecessary and over-strong claim. Neither: denies the assumed link between mining and harm.Common Pitfalls:Equating “ban illegal” with “legal is harmless.” Policy nuance matters.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 10

Statement — “The Government should deploy the army to rehabilitate people displaced by the earthquake.” Assumptions: I. The army can be used for purposes other than war. II. Only the army can rehabilitate earthquake-displaced people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Recommending army deployment for disaster relief presupposes that the army’s mandate can include civilian assistance. It need not assert exclusivity of capability.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Deploy army for rehabilitation of quake victims.Assumption I: Army may be used beyond warfare.Assumption II: Only army can do rehabilitation.Concept / Approach:I is necessary to expand the army’s role into disaster relief. II is too strong; civilian agencies, NGOs, and specialized disaster forces can also rehabilitate.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The recommendation requires legal/practical permissibility of non-war roles.2) It does not require monopoly of competence.Verification / Alternative check:Even if others can help, the army’s logistics and scale justify its deployment without claiming exclusivity.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Both/Either/Neither all miss the minimal necessary assumption I and avoid the overstatement in II.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “recommended actor” with “only capable actor.”Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 11

Statement — “The Government should deploy the army to rehabilitate people displaced due to the earthquake.” Assumptions: I. The army should be entrusted with non-war activity to give them enough experience. II. Rehabilitation of earthquake victims i…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This variant focuses on what obligates action. The suggestion that “Government should deploy the army” presumes that rehabilitating victims is a governmental duty; it does not imply using the army for the army’s training benefit.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Government should use the army for rehabilitation.Assumption I: Army needs non-war activity for experience.Assumption II: Rehabilitation of victims is the Government’s obligation.Concept / Approach:“Should” here expresses duty. The moral/administrative obligation lies with the Government, making II necessary. I reframes the purpose as training, which is not required by the statement’s aim.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the deontic core (“should”) → implies an obligation of Government.2) The choice of army is instrumental, not for training.Verification / Alternative check:Even if the army gains no experience, the state’s duty remains to rehabilitate victims; thus II stands while I falls.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Both/Either/Neither: do not align with the obligation-centric reading.Common Pitfalls:Attributing ancillary motives (training) when the statement signals public duty.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 12

Statement — “If children are to manage our world in the future, they need to be equipped to do so.” Assumptions: I. The world has always educated children. II. It is possible to educate and equip children.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The conditional claim argues for present investment (education/equipment) based on a future role of children. This presupposes that such equipping is feasible; it does not rely on historical constancy.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: If children will manage the world, they must be equipped now.Assumption I: The world has always educated children.Assumption II: Equipping/educating children is possible.Concept / Approach:Necessity analysis: the recommendation collapses if equipping is impossible. Whether the world “has always” educated children is a historical claim, not required.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify enabling condition: feasibility of education → II.2) Historical regularity (I) is irrelevant to the present prescription.Verification / Alternative check:Even if there were eras without formal education, the recommendation still makes sense provided education is possible now.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both/Neither misstate necessity.Common Pitfalls:Confusing background facts with enabling conditions.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 13

Statement — “No budgetary provision will be made for appointing additional faculty due to the Institute’s changed financial priorities.” Assumptions: I. Appointing faculty requires funds. II. Other areas presently require greater financial attention…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Budget exclusions reflect opportunity cost. The statement rests on (a) hiring needs money and (b) other priorities outrank new faculty right now.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: No allocation for additional faculty under changed priorities.Assumption I: Faculty appointments consume funds.Assumption II: Other uses of funds are more urgent/valuable at present.Concept / Approach:Without I, “no budget” would be meaningless; without II, the reason (“changed priorities”) would not justify the exclusion.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Hiring requires monetary provision → I.2) “Changed priorities” implies reallocation toward other heads → II.Verification / Alternative check:If hiring needed no funds, budget denial would not bind. If no alternative priorities existed, “changed priorities” would be empty rhetoric.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: insufficient. Neither: contradicts the budgeting logic.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring the opportunity-cost frame in budgeting.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit.

Question 14

Statement — “If people are intelligent, they should be creative.” Assumptions: I. Creativity and intelligence are related. II. Creative people are intelligent.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is a logical structure question. The statement links intelligence → creativity (a directional relation). It assumes some positive connection between the two, but it does not assert the converse.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: If intelligent, then should be creative.Assumption I: There is a relationship between intelligence and creativity.Assumption II: If creative, then intelligent (converse).Concept / Approach:A conditional “If A then B” assumes a relevance link between A and B. It does not require “If B then A.” Therefore I is valid as a minimal link; II is not implied.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify direction: intelligence → creativity.2) Necessity: accept at least a relatedness between the variables → I.3) The converse is not entailed; II is unnecessary.Verification / Alternative check:It is possible to have creative individuals who are not highly intelligent by some definitions; the original statement could still stand.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Both/Neither mischaracterize the logical direction and necessity.Common Pitfalls:Assuming equivalence (A iff B) where only a one-way implication is stated.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is valid.

Question 15

Statement — “The employees’ association urged its members to stay away from the annual function because many of their demands were not met by management.” Assumptions: I. A majority of members may not attend the function. II. The management may canc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A call to boycott presupposes that substantial compliance is possible and meaningful. It does not require the event’s cancellation by management.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Urge members to avoid the function as demands were unmet.Assumption I: Many members may heed the call, reducing attendance.Assumption II: Management might cancel the function.Concept / Approach:The effectiveness of a boycott rests on participation (I). Event cancellation (II) is a speculative consequence, not assumed by the urging itself.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Necessary belief: a significant number will comply → I.2) Cancellation is not essential for the appeal to make sense.Verification / Alternative check:The function can still be held with low turnout; the call remains rational without II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both/Neither misread the minimal necessity.Common Pitfalls:Assuming downstream outcomes as assumptions of the initial call.Final Answer:Only Assumption I is implicit.

Question 16

Statement — “The sarpanch called a meeting of all family heads to discuss the acute shortage of drinking water in the village.” Assumptions: I. The sarpanch had previously called such meetings to discuss village problems. II. Most family heads may a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Calling a community meeting presumes that invitees are likely to attend, otherwise the action would be ineffective. It does not rely on having called similar meetings before.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Sarpanch calls a meeting on water shortage.Assumption I: There were earlier meetings for various problems.Assumption II: Most heads are likely to attend.Concept / Approach:For the call to be practical, a reasonable expectation of attendance (II) is necessary. Prior history (I) is optional and not required.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Practicality test: without attendance, the call loses purpose → II.2) Whether such meetings occurred earlier is irrelevant to this call’s logic.Verification / Alternative check:Even if this is the first such meeting, it still makes sense if attendance is expected.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both/Neither do not capture the minimal necessity.Common Pitfalls:Equating tradition with necessity. Feasibility depends on likely participation.Final Answer:Only Assumption II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement — “Inculcate a saving habit in your school-going child.” Assumptions: I. A saving habit is desirable/expected. II. Good habits should be inculcated from childhood.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Prescriptive advice to parents about habits presumes two things: the habit is valuable, and early inculcation is effective and appropriate.Given Data / Assumptions:Statement: Encourage saving in a school-going child.Assumption I: Saving is a desirable habit.Assumption II: Good habits should begin in childhood.Concept / Approach:Without the value judgment (I), the advice lacks purpose. Without the early-start belief (II), the timing directed at “school-going” would be unmotivated.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assess value premise → I.2) Assess timing premise → II.Verification / Alternative check:If saving were not considered good, the instruction would not stand. If early inculcation were unnecessary, focusing on a child would be arbitrary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete. Neither: contradicts the advice’s rationale.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking that “should” signals both value and timing beliefs.Final Answer:Both Assumptions I and II are implicit.

Question 18

Statement: “The root cause of all social evils is love for wealth.” Assumptions I & II: I. Wealth gives power and necessarily makes people selfish. II. All those who love wealth are anti-social. Choose the option that correctly identifies which assu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement asserts a broad causal claim: “love for wealth” is the root cause of all social evils. In statement–assumption problems, an assumption is implicit only if the original claim relies on that belief to make sense. We must test whether the statement presupposes (I) that wealth necessarily gives power and makes people selfish, or (II) that everyone who loves wealth is anti-social.Given Data / Assumptions:I. Wealth gives power and makes selfish.II. All who love wealth are anti-social.Concept / Approach:The statement draws a general causal link from a value/attitude (love of wealth) to social evils. It does not need to claim that wealth invariably confers power or selfishness (I), nor that every wealth-loving individual is anti-social (II). It can instead be read as a sweeping moral thesis: prioritizing wealth leads society toward evils, even if the mechanism varies and the claim admits exceptions at the individual level.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify what the statement must assume minimally: that love of wealth tends to promote harmful outcomes at a societal level.2) Check Assumption I: “wealth gives power and makes selfish.” The statement can stand without specifying this particular mechanism; evils might arise via envy, corruption incentives, exploitation, etc. I is not necessary.3) Check Assumption II: “all who love wealth are anti-social.” The claim speaks at a societal/causal level (“root cause”), not about categorizing every individual who loves wealth. II is an unwarranted universal and not required.Verification / Alternative check:The statement remains meaningful if some wealth-loving people behave pro-socially, or if wealth does not always produce power/selfishness. Hence neither I nor II is required for the thesis to make sense.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: introduces a specific causal mechanism not demanded by the claim. Only II: imposes a universal quantifier the statement does not need. Either I or II / Both: still add unnecessary specifics beyond the minimal thesis.Common Pitfalls:Equating a societal causal thesis with universal claims about all individuals, or insisting on one mechanism (power/selfishness) when multiple pathways could link wealth-love and social evils.Final Answer:Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: “Even though the number of sugar factories is increasing rapidly in India, we still continue to import sugar from other countries.” Assumptions I & II: I. Even the increased number of factories may not meet India’s sugar demand. II. The d…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement contrasts rising domestic capacity (more factories) with continued sugar imports. Inference questions like this ask what minimal belief must hold for the contrast to be sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:I. Even after an increase in the number of factories, domestic supply is insufficient relative to current demand.II. Demand may grow substantially in the future.Concept / Approach:The observed fact of present imports, despite capacity growth, requires a present supply–demand gap. A conjecture about future demand is not necessary to explain current imports.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Observation: “We still import” implies domestic production shortfall relative to current demand, quality specifications, or timing.2) The most direct, necessary backdrop is I: increased factories still do not meet current demand (or needed quality/availability), hence imports continue.3) II is about future demand growth; imports now do not logically require that assumption.Verification / Alternative check:Even if future demand were stable or falling, present imports could persist due to shortages, seasonality, or cost/quality preferences. Hence II is unnecessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II: future conjecture does not justify current imports. Either/Both: include unnecessary premises. Neither: ignores the minimally required supply shortfall premise.Common Pitfalls:Assuming statements about present behavior rely on future projections; here the contrast is anchored in current mismatch.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: “The Government announced a heavy compensation package for all victims of the recent terrorist attacks.” Assumptions I & II: I. Such incidents of terror may not occur in the near future. II. Compensation may mitigate citizens’ anger again…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Governments often deploy compensation after traumatic events to offer relief and to signal responsiveness. We must identify which background belief the announcement minimally relies on.Given Data / Assumptions:I. Terror incidents will not recur soon.II. Compensation may reduce public anger/resentment toward the Government.Concept / Approach:Compensation is a remedial, not preventive, tool. Its rationale concerns relief, fairness, and maintaining public confidence—not forecasting the absence of future incidents.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The timing (“announced a heavy compensation package”) follows an attack; it is aimed at relief and public reassurance.2) The minimal assumption is II: providing compensation is expected to alleviate suffering and ease public anger at perceived state failure.3) I is unnecessary; compensation does not depend on predicting that attacks will cease.Verification / Alternative check:Even if further attacks tragically occur, compensation for current victims remains meaningful. Therefore I is not required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I: unrelated to remedial purpose. Either/Both: add unneeded premises. Neither: overlooks the basic expectation that compensation can soothe public sentiment.Common Pitfalls:Confusing remedial policy (compensation) with deterrence or prevention.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter