Question 1

Statement: “Gambling through lotteries is banned by the Central Government in all states with immediate effect.” Assumptions I & II: I. The ban may save innocent citizens from being cheated of their hard-earned money. II. Citizens will not gamble in…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bans on lotteries are often justified by consumer protection and social-harm arguments. We seek the minimal premise that makes a blanket, immediate ban sensible. Given Data / Assumptions: I. A ban protects citizens from fraud/exploitation via lotteries. II. Banning lotteries will stop all other gambling. Concept / Approach: Policy actions do not assume perfect behavior change; they assume the targeted harm is significant and that the ban reduces it. The measure need not assume that all other gambling disappears. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Immediate, nationwide ban implies the Government believes lotteries cause significant harm or abuse; I captures this protective rationale.2) II is overbroad: gambling can take many forms; the ban does not need to presuppose elimination of all gambling behavior.3) Thus only I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if other gambling persists, curbing lottery-related harm can still justify the ban. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both: assume too much. Neither: ignores the consumer-protection logic behind bans. Common Pitfalls: Expecting policies to presuppose perfect compliance or universal substitution effects. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 2

Statement: Warning on tobacco products — “Smoking is injurious to health.” Assumptions I & II: I. Non-smoking promotes health. II. This warning is not really necessary. Choose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Statutory health warnings communicate risks. An assumption is implicit only if the statement depends on it to make sense. Here, the warning asserts a factual risk about smoking; it does not necessarily claim the converse (that not smoking promotes health) nor that warnings are unnecessary. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Non-smoking promotes health. II. The warning is unnecessary. Concept / Approach: A risk statement (“injurious”) does not logically require its strict converse (I). It also clearly does not require belief in its own redundancy (II). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The warning’s purpose is to inform/alert about harm — this stands without claiming non-smoking actively promotes health.2) The act of warning presupposes necessity or usefulness, the opposite of II.3) Hence neither I nor II is required. Verification / Alternative check: Even if non-smoking were merely neutral (not “promoting” health), the harm warning is still valid. If authorities deemed warnings unnecessary, they would not mandate them. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II: each adds a claim not needed by the warning. Both/Either: still overstate; the warning needs neither. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “not harmful” with “health-promoting,” and misreading the presence of a warning as implying its own uselessness. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement: “Like a mad man, I decided to follow him.” Assumptions I & II: I. I am not actually a mad man (the phrase is a comparison/simile). II. I am a mad man. Choose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Idiomatic expressions such as “like a mad man” typically signal manner, not literal identity. We must determine which belief the statement relies on to convey meaning. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The speaker is using a simile—he behaved as if mad, but is not actually mad. II. The speaker is literally a mad man. Concept / Approach: In English usage, “like a …” constructs normally compare behavior to a stereotype. The sentence’s intelligibility depends on non-literal, comparative reading rather than identity assertion. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) “Like a mad man” modifies the manner of following (recklessly, impulsively).2) For that to be meaningful, we assume the speaker is not literally mad (I); otherwise the comparison collapses.3) II contradicts I and is not required. Verification / Alternative check: If the speaker were literally mad, the phrase would be tautological or odd (“like myself”). The idiom’s force comes from the comparison, not identity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: contradicts idiomatic sense. Either/Both: cannot both hold. Neither: ignores the comparative reading required. Common Pitfalls: Taking idioms literally; overlooking the grammatical role of “like.” Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 4

Statement: “If it is easy to become an engineer, I do not want to be an engineer.” Assumptions I & II: I. An individual aspires to be a professional (in general). II. People desire to achieve things that are hard-earned. Choose the option that corre…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker ties desirability of becoming an engineer to the difficulty of achieving it: if it is easy, he opts out. This reveals a value orientation toward challenge, not a general aspiration to “be a professional.” Given Data / Assumptions: I. People in general aspire to professional status. II. People (or at least the speaker) value hard-earned achievements over easy ones. Concept / Approach: The conditional construction links the speaker’s preference to difficulty. The statement does not depend on broad claims about professional aspiration; it hinges on the desirability of challenge. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The rejection of “engineer” when it is easy implies a belief that ease diminishes value.2) Therefore II is necessary: the speaker prefers goals that require effort.3) I is irrelevant; the statement neither asserts nor needs a generic desire for professional status. Verification / Alternative check: Even if many do not aspire to any profession, the speaker’s conditional preference remains coherent. Thus I is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Either/Both: overstate or misdirect the premise. Neither: ignores the core “hard-earned value” orientation. Common Pitfalls: Reading the sentence as a commentary on professions broadly rather than on the value attached to difficulty. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 5

Statement: “The municipal corporation has permitted fun fairs in the local football ground during the holiday season.” Assumptions I–III: I. Local residents may protest the corporation’s decision. II. Many people may not participate in the fun fair.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Granting permission is an administrative act acknowledging feasibility and expected public utility. We test whether the decision presupposes protests, low participation, or child-only access. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Residents may protest. II. Many people may not participate. III. Only children are allowed. Concept / Approach: An action’s minimal assumptions are those without which it would not make practical sense. Permission to hold a public fair normally presumes adequate participation and inclusivity, not the negations suggested in I–III. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The corporation’s decision can be fully sensible without assuming protests (I); in fact, it expects orderly conduct.2) The decision also does not assume low participation (II); if anything, it anticipates interest.3) III is plainly not required; a public fun fair typically targets families, not exclusively children.4) Therefore, none of I–III is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even if protests or low turnout occur, the permission’s rationale (seasonal recreation, local economy) remains independent of those negative assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: All implicit / Only III / I and II: these load the decision with unnecessary or contrary assumptions. Common Pitfalls: Assuming authorities predict negative responses as prerequisites; permissions typically rest on compliance with norms and expected benefits. Final Answer: None is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: “Railways has started internet booking for long-distance trains and doorstep ticket delivery via courier for a small extra cost.” Assumptions I–III: I. Many customers may book online, reducing crowds at counters. II. Most customers may st…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The new facility (online booking + home delivery) targets convenience and decongestion. We must see which assumptions are necessary for launching it and then map to the given options. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Many will adopt online booking, easing counter queues. II. Most will still use counters. III. People will ignore the facility. Concept / Approach: A rollout presupposes expected uptake (I). It does not require believing that most will ignore it or stick to counters (II/III). Hence the minimally necessary assumption is I. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The service’s purpose (convenience, decongestion) implies I.2) II and III contradict that rationale and are not necessary.3) Among the provided choices, there is no option that says “Only I is implicit” except option_e which we supply for completeness; since the original option list lacks that choice, the correct mapping is “None of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Even partial adoption supports the decision; expecting majority counter-purchases or total neglect would undercut the launch rationale. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only III / II and III / None are implicit: each ignores the self-evident adoption premise. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that administrative moves generally assume some uptake, not mass indifference. Final Answer: None of the above.

Question 7

Statement: “A society is in danger when those who have never learned to obey are given the right to command.” Assumptions I & II: I. A good commander should be disciplined (has learned to obey). II. The speaker has witnessed societal vices being con…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The aphorism links fitness to command with prior discipline. It warns of danger when command is handed to those lacking the formative experience of obedience. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Effective command presupposes discipline—learning to obey before leading. II. The speaker has specifically observed undisciplined leaders handling societal vices. Concept / Approach: The general warning requires only a normative premise about leadership qualities (I). It does not require autobiographical evidence or specific experiences (II). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) “Danger when non-obedient command” implies: good command derives from discipline and obedience training (I).2) The statement is a principle, not a report of witnessed events; II is unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: The maxim remains valid as advice even if the speaker has never observed such cases personally. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both: add contingent facts not required for the normative claim. Neither: ignores the leadership-requires-discipline premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing normative aphorisms with empirical testimony. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 8

Statement: “Bar Council of India (BCI) will go on a hunger strike to protest implementation of the Legal Services Authority (Amendment) Act,” says the Chairman of BCI. Assumptions I–III: I. The amendment has loopholes and will hurt litigants’ intere…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Collective protests by professional bodies rest on (a) a belief that the targeted policy is harmful, and (b) a belief that the protest tactic can exert influence. Given Data / Assumptions: I. The amendment is materially harmful to litigants—grounds for protest. II. Unanimous internal support is expected (every BCI member welcomes it). III. The chosen tactic (hunger strike) will apply pressure on decision-makers. Concept / Approach: For the announcement to be rational, BCI must believe the policy is harmful (I) and that the method can work (III). Unanimity (II) is not necessary; decisions can be taken by leadership/majority. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Without I, there is no cause to protest.2) Without III, the tactic lacks purpose; other tactics might exist, but the chosen one presupposes expected pressure.3) II is stronger than needed; organizations often proceed despite dissent. Verification / Alternative check: The protest remains coherent even if some members oppose it. Hence II is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: omits the tactical-efficacy premise. Only I and II / All: add unnecessary unanimity. Common Pitfalls: Assuming unanimity in collective actions; most hinge on perceived harm and tactic effectiveness. Final Answer: Only I and III.

Question 9

Statement: “For the third time this week, IGI Airport was put on full alert after Air India received an anonymous message that two terrorists with explosives were on the Mumbai–Delhi–Hong Kong flight,” says an airport authority. Assumptions I–III: I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Security responses to anonymous threats must balance false positives vs. missed threats. Regardless of belief about hoax likelihood, the recurring action (full alert) presupposes that heightened alertness is useful. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Threat is probably genuine. II. Threat is probably a hoax. III. Going on full alert helps mitigate risk. Concept / Approach: The decision to go on alert can be justified if authorities think the threat might be real (aligns with I) or even if they think it is likely a hoax but choose caution (aligns with II). In either case, the utility of alertness (III) is necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The action is sensible if authorities deem the message credible (I) — then alertness is prudent.2) Alternatively, even with hoax suspicion (II), standard protocol may demand alertness out of caution.3) In both scenarios, III is essential: alertness reduces potential harm. Verification / Alternative check: Without III, full alerts would be pointless regardless of hoax beliefs. Hence the correct pattern is “Either I or II, and III.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I and III / Only II and III: each privileges one belief; the statement structure allows either belief combined with III. Only III: omits the threat-belief dimension guiding action. Common Pitfalls: Thinking authorities must commit to one view of credibility; in practice, protocols trigger alertness under uncertainty. Final Answer: Either I or II and III.

Question 10

Statement: “You should be very careful so that the society does not adversely comment on the police leadership,” said a CBI officer to newly recruited young officers. Assumptions I–III: I. Society always indulges in adverse comments. II. People’s tr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic statement–assumption item. A senior officer cautions recruits to act carefully “so that society does not adversely comment on the police leadership.” We must test which background beliefs are necessary for the advice to make sense. Importantly, the statement is a prudential warning about reputation management; it is not a sociological treatise about public behavior or a claim that citizens judge perfectly. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Society always indulges in adverse comments. II. Public trust in police is below the desired level. III. Society judges police leadership accurately. Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit only if, without it, the statement becomes pointless or incoherent. The caution is compatible with many worlds: high or low trust, fair or unfair judgments, frequent or infrequent criticism. The advice aims to avoid negative commentary, not to declare that such commentary is inevitable or infallible. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The officer asks recruits to be careful. This is rational even if society rarely criticizes (so I is not necessary) because vigilance still helps avoid preventable reputational damage.2) The statement does not require that trust is presently low (II). Even with high trust, imprudent actions could spark new criticism; thus the advice retains purpose.3) The advice does not claim society judges accurately (III). It merely notes the existence and potential impact of adverse comments, which might be fair or unfair; accuracy is not presupposed.4) Therefore none of I, II, or III is strictly required for the advisory to make sense. Verification / Alternative check: If society were generally supportive (contrary to I and II) and sometimes inaccurate in judgment (contrary to III), the officer’s “be careful” still remains sensible. The advice is precautionary under uncertainty. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I and II/Only II and III/Only I and III: each loads the statement with extra claims not needed. “Both I and II” likewise overcommits. “None” captures the minimal reading. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “be careful to avoid criticism” with “people always criticize” or “people judge correctly.” Final Answer: None.

Question 11

Statement: The High Court ordered State X to submit the case papers of a hit-and-run accident involving actor Mr. Y and directed police not to allow the actor, family members, or friends to meet witnesses or victims. Assumptions I–III: I. The kith a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Court directions that restrict an accused (and associates) from contacting witnesses aim to preserve evidence, prevent intimidation, and ensure a fair trial. We must test which assumptions are minimally necessary for the order to be rational. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Associates of an accused might attempt to influence witnesses or disturb proceedings. II. The accused’s status should not affect punishment. III. The court’s immediate concern is victim grievance redressal. Concept / Approach: The operative logic of the order is evidence protection and process integrity. It does not speak to sentencing philosophy (II) nor is it primarily a victim-compensation order (III). The minimal premise is the risk of interference with witnesses or evidence (I). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Prohibiting contact is justified if the court believes contact could taint, pressure, or influence witnesses (I).2) Claim II pertains to sentencing norms and equality before law; the order is pre-trial procedural and does not presuppose a punishment principle.3) Claim III reframes the order as victim-centric grievance redressal, whereas its content targets interference prevention. Not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even if victims’ grievances were already addressed, the order would still be justified on preservation grounds. Likewise, sentencing principles (II) are orthogonal at this stage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I and II”/“Only I and III”/“All” add superfluous premises; “None of the above” denies the evident interference-risk premise. Common Pitfalls: Reading a procedural safeguard as a value statement about punishment or victim policy. Final Answer: Only I.

Question 12

Statement: “Never use obvious PINs like your car registration number, birth date, or telephone number. Change your PIN every three months.” — Instruction to bank customers with ATM facilities. Assumptions I & II: I. ATM cards issued by a bank to cus…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The guidance warns against obvious PIN choices and recommends periodic changes. Such advice is a classic defense against unauthorized access. We must determine the minimally necessary assumptions enabling the advice to have purpose. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Cards can be lost/stolen or otherwise fall into unauthorized hands. II. There exist actors who might attempt to use someone else’s card (with or without the correct PIN) to withdraw funds. Concept / Approach: For PIN hygiene advice to matter, two risks must be plausible: (a) card possession by an unauthorized party and (b) attempts to guess or acquire the PIN. If either were impossible, the advice would be pointless. Obvious PINs (birth dates, etc.) aid guessing—especially when the attacker knows the victim. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) “Never use obvious PINs” presumes adversaries may try to infer PINs from known personal data, which is relevant only if attackers could get the card (I) and try to use it (II).2) “Change your PIN every three months” mitigates risks from shoulder-surfing, leaks, or temporary access, again presupposing the possibility of misuse (II) and occasional loss/theft or duplication of cards (I).3) Thus both I and II underpin the recommendation. Verification / Alternative check: If cards could never be lost/stolen, or if nobody would attempt misuse, periodic PIN changes and avoiding obvious PINs would be unnecessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: each omits one necessary flank of the risk model. Neither: contradicts the very rationale for security advice. Common Pitfalls: Assuming online-only risk; ATM misuse is primarily possession + PIN guessing. Obvious PINs catastrophically lower guessing cost. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 13

Statement: “We provide subsidised tea to labourers — pay only Rs 2 instead of Rs 2.50 and get a cup.” — An advertisement. Assumptions I & II: I. Labourers can afford a cup of tea at Rs 2. II. Subsidised pricing attracts customers. Choose the option …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: An advertisement offers tea at a subsidised price to a target segment (labourers). For the message to be effective, two things must hold: affordability at the quoted price and the demand-stimulating effect of the discount. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Rs 2 per cup lies within the typical willingness/ability to pay of labourers. II. A price reduction (from Rs 2.50) increases purchase likelihood. Concept / Approach: Marketing claims presuppose a price–demand relationship. If the price were still unaffordable or if discounts did not sway choices, the advertisement’s hook would fail. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The subsidy is highlighted as a benefit; this assumes buyers can pay Rs 2 (I).2) The very act of advertising a discount presumes discounts attract demand (II).3) Therefore both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If Rs 2 remained unaffordable, the ad would miss its audience. If discounts did not alter behavior, announcing a lower price would lack persuasive power. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Neither each ignores part of the minimal marketing logic. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “subsidised” with “free”; some ability to pay is still required. Also, attraction is behavioral, not guaranteed—assumption is about tendency. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 14

Statement: “Dowry cannot be eradicated from our society unless we change people’s mindset.” Assumptions I & II: I. The existence of the dowry system is undesirable in a society. II. It is possible to bring a radical change in people’s mindset. Choos…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement prescribes a social remedy (mindset change) as a necessary condition for eradicating dowry. Such a prescription rests on two premises: that dowry is a problem worth eradicating and that mindsets are malleable through socialization, policy, education, or cultural work. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Dowry is socially undesirable and should be removed. II. People’s mindsets can be changed substantially. Concept / Approach: If dowry were acceptable, eradication would be pointless; if mindsets were fixed, calling for change would be futile. Hence both premises undergird the recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) “Cannot be eradicated unless…” frames mindset change as a necessary precondition — presupposing that mindsets can be changed (II).2) The goal (eradication) presumes dowry is undesirable (I).3) Therefore both I and II are implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Even in the presence of laws, entrenched attitudes often sustain practices; the statement highlights culture as the binding constraint. This remains coherent only if change is considered possible and worthwhile. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II omits part of the logic. Either/Neither fails to capture the dual premise that gives the statement force. Common Pitfalls: Reading “unless” as merely stylistic; it explicitly signals necessity of mindset change. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 15

Statement: “No war, yet 1,874 Indian Army personnel were killed or injured during the 10-month forward deployment along the Indo-Pak border last year,” says an opposition leader. Assumptions I & II: I. Soldiers lack basic necessities such as decent …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker highlights a high casualty figure “despite no war,” implicitly criticizing the situation. We must identify which premises are required by this criticism. Note the statement does not specify causes (equipment, training, terrain) or compare against an “estimated limit.” Given Data / Assumptions: I. Troops lack necessary protective gear. II. Casualties exceed an established estimate. Concept / Approach: The political point is rhetorical: casualties are troubling even without declared war. This sentiment does not need a claim about inadequate gear (I) or reference to a benchmark (II). It could be driven by dangerous patrols, infiltration, mines, weather, or accidents—none asserted. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The statement observes casualty numbers and contrasts them with “no war.”2) It does not attribute causation to equipment deficiencies (I); many causal stories could fit.3) It does not cite or require an official casualty cap (II) to make the rhetorical point; the absolute number itself is used to shock. Verification / Alternative check: Even if gear were adequate and casualties within historical variance, the speaker could still lament high numbers in peacetime deployment. Hence neither I nor II is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both all import details (cause or benchmarks) not needed for the contrast to be meaningful. Common Pitfalls: Reading implied causation into political rhetoric; the statement stays at the level of contrast and concern. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 16

Statement: “Instead of limiting capital punishment to the rarest of the rare cases, it should be made mandatory for crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, child molestation, and anti-national activities. If a person does not respect the law, le…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement advocates expanding mandatory capital punishment, offering a deterrence rationale: “If a person does not respect the law, let him at least fear it.” We must identify which premises are necessary. Note the focus is on deterrence via fear, not on execution methods or moral desert of kindness. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Death sentences should be painless. II. Heinous-crime convicts deserve no kindness whatsoever. Concept / Approach: The policy claim turns on the belief that harsher, certain penalties deter crime by increasing expected costs to offenders. Neither the painlessness of execution (I) nor a comprehensive denial of kindness (II) is needed to support that deterrence logic. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The key premise is: severe mandatory penalties increase fear and thus deter (general/specific deterrence). Neither I nor II states this.2) I concerns humane administration—orthogonal to deterrence.3) II asserts a moral stance about kindness; deterrence can be endorsed even by those who still support procedural kindness (e.g., due process, humane treatment). Verification / Alternative check: The argument would proceed identically whether executions were painless or whether limited kindness remained (e.g., last rites). Hence neither I nor II is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both add moral or procedural details not necessary for deterrence-based advocacy. Common Pitfalls: Confusing policy rationale (deterrence) with separate debates (humane methods, retribution vs rehabilitation). Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement: “Claims that State X is progressing industrially are tall; unemployment rising by leaps and bounds is enough to corroborate that,” says a politician of State X. Assumptions I & II: I. If the state were progressing on the industrial front,…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The politician rejects “industrial progress” claims by citing rising unemployment as contradictory evidence. The argument treats unemployment as a proxy for industrial performance. We must extract the necessary premise(s) behind this inference. Given Data / Assumptions: I. Genuine industrial progress tends to reduce unemployment (or at least not let it surge). II. Industrial progress reduces financial crunch. Concept / Approach: To use rising unemployment as a rebuttal to industrial progress claims, one must assume a negative relationship between industrial progress and unemployment (I). Claim II about “financial crunch” is not used in the argument; it is extraneous. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The structure is modus tollens–like: If industrial progress, then lower (or stable) unemployment; but unemployment is rising sharply; therefore, not progressing.2) This requires I to connect progress to unemployment. 3) Statement II concerns fiscal conditions and is not part of the unemployment-based refutation. Verification / Alternative check: The politician’s claim collapses if industrial progress can coexist with rising unemployment (e.g., automation with jobless growth). Hence I is indeed the hinge premise; II is irrelevant to this specific reasoning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both/Neither misrepresent the logical dependence of the argument. Common Pitfalls: Assuming every metric must move together; here the speaker specifically leans on unemployment as the barometer, which needs I. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: In a bid to discourage cattle owners from letting their animals roam on public roads, the Municipal Corporation of city X has increased the fine from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. Assumptions: I. Increasing the fine may reduce the stray-cattle prob…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement reports a policy change: the Municipal Corporation raises the monetary penalty for allowing cattle to stray on roads from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. The goal is deterrence—reducing road obstruction, accidents, and sanitation hazards. The task is to identify which assumptions must be true for the decision to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed action: fine enhanced from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000. Stated aim: discourage owners from letting cattle loose on roads. Assumption I: a higher fine can decrease the stray-cattle menace. Assumption II: the new amount is large enough that owners will promptly retrieve cattle. Concept / Approach: In statement–assumption problems, an assumption is implicit if the action would lose purpose without it. Policy tools like fines rely on deterrence logic: higher expected cost influences behavior. However, they do not require that the exact rupee amount be “large” for every owner—only that increasing penalties tends to improve compliance. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The move from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000 presupposes that penalties influence behavior; otherwise, the increase would be purposeless. This supports Assumption I.2) Assumption II is stronger: it asserts sufficiency and uniform responsiveness (“quite a large sum” and “should prompt” early retrieval). The statement does not need this stronger claim; owners vary in income and responsiveness, and enforcement also matters.3) Therefore, only Assumption I is necessary for the policy to make sense. Verification / Alternative check: Even if Rs 5000 is not “large” for some owners, incremental deterrence can still operate through repeated penalties, seizure powers, or escalations. The policy’s logic stands with I alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II: Sufficiency of amount is not required; the policy could work partially or via enforcement. Either / Both: Include an unnecessary strength claim in II. Neither: Rejects deterrence logic underpinning fines. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “some positive effect” with “guaranteed and immediate compliance.” Policies generally assume probabilistic deterrence, not absolute. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: "Learn to solve Quantitative Aptitude questions in 3 seconds, plus Data Interpretation without written steps—taught by our experts—or get Rs 10,000 back as a penalty." — an advertisement by XYZ Coaching Institute. Assumptions: I. A candid…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a persuasive claim by a coaching institute offering dramatic performance gains (solving in “3 seconds”, DI with “no written steps”), sweetened by a money-back penalty. We must detect what the advertisement must assume, not what it merely suggests rhetorically. Given Data / Assumptions: The institute promises speed and mental-work techniques. There is a Rs 10,000 penalty/guarantee mechanism. Assumption I: candidates cannot even read a question in 3 seconds. Assumption II: DI without written work is hard for all aspirants. Concept / Approach: An ad typically assumes current difficulty exists for many students, so its service is valuable. But “many” is not “all”, and inability to read a question in 3 seconds is not required for the promise: they claim to teach scanning heuristics and patterns. The guarantee is a marketing device indicating confidence, not logical proof of I or II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If candidates can read quickly already, the course could still claim to improve solving speed. So I is not necessary.2) If some aspirants can do DI mentally already, the offer still stands for the rest; II’s universal “for all” is too strong.3) Therefore, neither I nor II is a necessary underpinning of the ad’s promise. Verification / Alternative check: Guarantees often operate as signals; they do not define the logical minimum assumptions beyond “some students will benefit.” That weaker assumption is not among I or II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Both: Overstate the ad’s commitments. Either: At least one of I or II must be necessary; neither is. Common Pitfalls: Reading superlative marketing literally as logical necessity; treat universals (“all”, strict time) with caution. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: The High Court of state X has decided to abolish summer vacations to clear pending cases. Assumptions: I. Court vacations are a legacy of the colonial (Raj) period. II. This step will compel the Government to fill all judicial vacancies.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The court chooses to work through the usual vacation period to accelerate case disposal. We must identify necessary assumptions behind this operational decision, not broader historical or political claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: abolishing summer vacation to reduce backlog. No statement about the origin of vacations. No statement promising executive (Government) action on vacancies. Concept / Approach: For the decision to make sense, the court only needs to assume that additional sitting days aid backlog reduction. Claims about colonial vestiges (I) or compelling Government to fill vacancies (II) are not required to justify the schedule change. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If I is false (vacations are not colonial), the decision can still be justified by throughput gains.2) If II is false (Government does not fill vacancies), the court may still gain extra disposal capacity by sitting more days.3) Hence, neither I nor II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Operational levers (more hearing days, longer benches, case triage) improve disposal independent of executive hiring cycles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options asserting I or II as necessary add extraneous motives not inherent in the action. Common Pitfalls: Attributing symbolic or political motives when a simpler operational rationale suffices. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions