Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Prudent lending policies rely on information quality and on guarding against misrepresentation. A directive to “always check” presupposes that checking is informative and that self-reports can be unreliable. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Always verify the client’s financial status. Assumption I: Verification reveals a true or truer picture. Assumption II: Clients may sometimes misstate their repayment ability. Concept / Approach: If checks did not improve knowledge (I) or if clients’ disclosures were always accurate (II false), the “always check” rule would be unnecessary. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Necessity of I: Without informational gain, checks waste resources.2) Necessity of II: If clients never misrepresented, mandatory checks would be redundant. Verification / Alternative check: Asymmetric information and adverse selection in credit markets justify both assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either: each omits part of the rationale. Neither: contradicts prudent banking. Common Pitfalls: Assuming checks are mere formality; they exist to mitigate risk. Final Answer: Both assumptions I and II are implicit.

Question 2

Statement — “Let there be a signboard indicating directions and instructions.” Assumptions: I. A signboard can be prepared without using any language. II. A signboard is the only effective tool to indicate directions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The recommendation is to install a signboard to communicate directions and instructions. We test whether the statement commits to “language-free” communication or to exclusivity of signboards over other tools. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Put up a signboard for directions/instructions. Assumption I: Signboards can be prepared without any language. Assumption II: Signboards are the only effective way to indicate directions. Concept / Approach: The statement merely selects a medium (a signboard). It does not require that the board be language-free; it could use text, icons, or both. Nor does it claim exclusivity; maps, announcements, and digital displays can also work. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test I: The statement works whether the board uses text or pictograms; language-freeness is not necessary.2) Test II: The statement does not deny other effective media; it simply recommends one. Verification / Alternative check: Even if multiple tools exist, installing a signboard can still be sensible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I/Only II/Either/Both introduce constraints not required by the recommendation. Common Pitfalls: Over-reading exclusivity or special format where none is stated. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement — “To build more usable space, extra FSI (Floor Space Index) needs to be brought/obtained.” Assumptions: I. The person addressed does not know the meaning of FSI. II. More space will reduce the construction cost.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence links the goal (more usable space) with the means (extra FSI). We must test whether it presupposes ignorance of the term FSI or a claim about cost reduction. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: To get more built-up area, obtain higher FSI. Assumption I: Listener does not know what FSI means. Assumption II: More space will reduce construction cost. Concept / Approach: Neither is necessary. The advice stands regardless of the listener’s prior knowledge (the term can be used among professionals), and cost may rise with more space; the statement is about feasibility, not cost savings. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I not required: expertise of the listener is irrelevant to the logic.2) II not required: cost behavior is not asserted; often more area increases absolute cost. Verification / Alternative check: Whether or not the person knows FSI, getting more FSI remains the structural route to more buildable area. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option claiming I or II adds unnecessary or incorrect content. Common Pitfalls: Assuming every instruction implies ignorance or a cost claim; here it merely states a planning precondition. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor II is implicit.

Question 4

Statement — “If you want to increase your writing speed, use a 0.7 pen.” Assumptions: I. Different types of pens are available. II. The person being advised understands what a 0.7 pen is.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a recommendation connecting a goal (higher writing speed) to a tool choice (0.7 pen, i.e., 0.7 mm tip). We test which background beliefs are essential for the advice to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Use a 0.7 pen to write faster. Assumption I: There exist different pen types (tip sizes/inks) to choose from. Assumption II: The listener already understands what “0.7 pen” means. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to make sense, a choice set among pen types must exist (I). However, advice can be given even if the listener does not yet know the term “0.7”; clarification can follow. Hence II is not necessary to utter the recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Diversity of pens underpins the comparative recommendation → I necessary.2) Comprehension of the jargon is not a precondition to giving the advice → II unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the listener asks “what is 0.7?”, the statement remains a coherent piece of advice that can be explained further. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II/Either/Both: over-commit. Neither: would make the comparative advice baseless. Common Pitfalls: Assuming understood jargon is always presupposed; recommendations often introduce new terms. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 5

Consider the statement: "If it does not rain throughout this month, most farmers would be in trouble this year." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Timely rain is essential for successful farming. 2. Most farmers are …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a statement and assumption question about agriculture and rainfall. The statement warns that if there is no rain during the present month, most farmers will face trouble this year. Assumptions are unstated ideas that must be true for the statement to make sense. They are not directly written in the sentence but are necessary for the reasoning behind the statement to hold. We need to check which of the given assumptions are implicit in this warning. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: If it does not rain throughout this month, most farmers would be in trouble this year. Assumption 1: Timely rain is essential for farming. Assumption 2: Most farmers are generally dependent on rain for their crops. The focus is on the link between rainfall, farming success, and farmer welfare. Concept / Approach: When someone says farmers will be in trouble if it does not rain during a particular month, they are clearly linking the absence of rain to problems in farming. This implies that rainfall, especially at the right time, is crucial for the crops. The statement also talks about most farmers, not just a few, which suggests that a large proportion of farmers depend mainly on rain fed farming instead of assured irrigation. If either of these were not true, the statement would lose its force or would not be meaningful. So we must test whether both listed assumptions are necessary for the statement to make sense. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: If timely rain were not essential for farming, then lack of rain this month would not automatically place farmers in trouble.Step 2: The speaker predicts trouble specifically due to no rain this month, so they implicitly accept that this month s rain is important for crop growth.Step 3: The statement refers to most farmers, meaning that a large majority are affected by rainfall patterns.Step 4: This implies that most farmers depend on rainfall and do not have fully reliable watering systems like canals or tube wells.Step 5: Therefore both Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 must be true for the statement to be reasonable. Verification / Alternative check: If Assumption 1 were false and timely rain were not essential, then no rain this month would not automatically cause trouble, contradicting the statement.If Assumption 2 were false and only a small minority depended on rain, the phrase most farmers would be in trouble would be exaggerated and misleading.Thus both assumptions are indeed implicit in the original statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it ignores the dependence of most farmers on rainfall, which is clearly suggested.Option B is wrong because if timely rain were not essential, the predicted trouble would not logically follow.Option C is wrong because both statements are simultaneously required, not just one of them. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes treat obvious facts, like importance of rain, as not being assumptions, but in assumption questions such background facts can be implicit.Another pitfall is to focus only on one part of the statement, such as most farmers, and forget the role of timely rain in the logic. Final Answer: Since both assumptions support and are required by the statement, the correct answer is Both 1 and 2 follow.

Question 6

Manish alone can complete a piece of work in 20 days. After Manish has worked alone for 8 days, Sriram joins him to help finish the remaining work. The question asks: in how many days will the entire work be completed? You are given two data stateme…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a data sufficiency question based on work and time. Manish starts a job alone and Sriram joins later. Instead of asking you to compute the exact answer, the question asks which of the two given statements provide enough information to find the total time. For such questions you must not combine extra assumptions. You only check whether the details in each statement, taken separately, are adequate to uniquely determine the total number of days required to complete the work. Given Data / Assumptions: Manish alone can complete the entire work in 20 days. Manish works alone for the first 8 days. After day 8, Sriram joins Manish and they work together until completion. Statement I: Sriram takes twice as long as Manish to finish the job alone. Statement II: Sriram completes half the work in 15 days when working alone. Concept / Approach: In work and time problems, if you know the time an individual takes to finish a job alone, you can find that person s work rate as 1 divided by time. When two people work together, their combined rate is the sum of individual rates. To judge sufficiency, we check whether each statement gives us enough information to determine Sriram s rate and therefore the combined rate, after which the remaining time can be computed. If one statement does that without needing the other, that statement alone is sufficient. If either statement alone allows the calculation, then the correct option is that either I or II is sufficient. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From the basic data, Manish s time is 20 days, so his rate is 1/20 of the work per day.Step 2: In the first 8 days, Manish completes 8 * (1/20) = 8/20 = 0.4 of the work, so 0.6 remains.Step 3: Using Statement I, Sriram takes twice Manish s time, so Sriram s time alone is 40 days and his rate is 1/40 per day.Step 4: With Statement I alone, the combined rate is 1/20 + 1/40 = 3/40 of the work per day, so the remaining 0.6 work can be finished in 0.6 / (3/40) days, which is a unique value. Thus Statement I alone is sufficient.Step 5: Using Statement II alone, Sriram completes half the work in 15 days, so his rate is (1/2)/15 = 1/30 of the work per day. The combined rate of Manish and Sriram is then 1/20 + 1/30 = 5/60 = 1/12 of the work per day, from which the remaining time can again be uniquely determined. So Statement II alone is also sufficient. Verification / Alternative check: With Statement I, the remaining time after day 8 comes out to a specific number of days, so there is no ambiguity.With Statement II, a different but still unique total time can be computed, proving that Statement II also gives enough information by itself.Therefore each statement independently is sufficient to answer the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it ignores the fact that Statement II by itself also allows a complete solution.Option B is wrong because it ignores the sufficiency of Statement I.Option D is wrong because it claims that neither statement is sufficient, even though both are sufficient individually. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to actually compute final answers and then think that different results mean insufficiency, but data sufficiency only asks whether a single answer is possible, not to match both.Another pitfall is to think both statements together are needed whenever the question mentions two people, but here each statement alone provides Sriram s rate. Final Answer: Since each statement on its own is enough to compute the total time, the correct option is Either the statements I and II is sufficient to answer the question.

Question 7

The M Cooperative housing society has put up a notice at its gate stating that sales persons are not allowed inside the society premises. On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. All sales persons will stay away from M Coop…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question is about a cooperative housing society that has put up a notice at its gate saying that sales persons are not allowed. Assumptions are the hidden ideas taken for granted when someone decides to act. We must decide which assumptions are necessary for the society s decision to put up the notice to make sense. The answer options refer to two possible assumptions related to behaviour of sales persons and the role of the security guard. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: M Cooperative housing society puts up a notice that sales persons are not allowed. Assumption 1: All sales persons will stay away from the society after seeing the notice. Assumption 2: The security guard at the gate may be able to stop sales persons from entering the society. We must decide which assumptions are reasonably implied by the act of putting up the notice. Concept / Approach: When an organisation puts up a notice, it usually assumes that the notice will help control behaviour, but not necessarily that it will be perfectly effective. People may still try to enter, which is why additional enforcement like a security guard is present. Assumption 1 is very strong because it says all sales persons will obey the notice. The society does not need to assume perfect obedience to decide to put up a sign. Assumption 2 is more realistic because if there is a guard at the gate, the society likely believes that the guard can use the notice to stop unwanted visitors. Thus, we must see which assumption is necessary rather than merely convenient or ideal. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption 1. The society might hope that many sales persons will stay away, but its decision to put up a notice does not logically require that all will stay away.Step 2: Even if some do not obey, the notice still has value as an official policy statement, so complete obedience is not a necessary assumption.Step 3: Consider Assumption 2. If there is a security guard, the notice gives that guard authority to deny entry to sales persons.Step 4: It is reasonable to assume the society believes the guard can use the notice to stop or at least filter sales persons, or the notice would have limited practical effect.Step 5: Therefore Assumption 2 is implicit, while Assumption 1 is too strong and not required. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption 2 and suppose the guard cannot or will not enforce the notice, putting up the notice loses much of its purpose.If we deny Assumption 1 and accept that some sales persons may still attempt entry, the decision to put up a notice remains meaningful, so Assumption 1 is not essential.This confirms that only Assumption 2 is implicit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because Assumption 1 is not required for the statement to make sense.Option C is wrong because it suggests that either 1 or 2 alone must be true, but Assumption 1 alone is not needed at all.Option D is wrong because the society does not have to believe both assumptions; only the second is necessary. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse what the society might prefer ideally with what it must assume logically. Ideal compliance by all is not an assumption.Another pitfall is overlooking the practical enforcement role of a security guard when signs or notices are mentioned. Final Answer: Thus only the second assumption is implicit in the society s decision, so the correct answer is Only 2 is true.

Question 8

The highway police authority has put up large boards at regular intervals along the highway, indicating the maximum speed limit and warning about the dangers of over speeding. On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. Most m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question concerns road safety measures. Highway authorities put up signboards indicating speed limits and warning about over speeding. Assumptions are the unstated beliefs that justify taking this step. If the authorities believed that signs have no effect at all, they would not spend time and money installing them. We must decide which of the two given assumptions is implied by this action and which, if any, is not. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Large boards showing speed limits and dangers of over speeding are installed at regular intervals along the highway. Assumption I: Most motorists may drive within the speed limit when they see these boards. Assumption II: Motorists generally ignore such cautions and continue to over speed. Authorities act with the expectation that their measures will have some positive impact. Concept / Approach: When a body invests in warning boards, it assumes that at least some drivers will respond by changing behaviour. If the agency believed that motorists generally ignore all warnings, it would not see value in putting up boards, and might instead enforce rules only through fines and checks. Therefore, assumption I, that motorists may drive within the speed limit after reading the board, is naturally implicit. Assumption II, that motorists generally ignore such cautions, contradicts the intention behind installing boards and cannot be considered implicit in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the action: investing in large boards at regular intervals means resources are spent on communication.Step 2: This action makes sense only if the authority believes that boards will influence at least most or many motorists to obey the speed limits.Step 3: That belief is captured in Assumption I, which says that most motorists may drive within the speed limit when cautioned.Step 4: Assumption II claims that motorists generally ignore such warnings and still over speed, which would make boards ineffective.Step 5: If the authority truly believed Assumption II, spending on boards would appear pointless, so II cannot be implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Deny Assumption I and suppose motorists will not adjust speed when warned. In that case the signboards would not help, which conflicts with the decision to install them.Deny Assumption II and suppose motorists do not usually ignore warnings. Then boards are more likely to be effective, which fits with the statement.Thus only Assumption I is consistent with and required by the given action. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B is wrong because Assumption II describes behaviour that would make the boards useless, so it cannot be an assumption behind installing them.Option C is wrong because the two assumptions are not interchangeable; one supports the action and the other undermines it.Option D is wrong because both assumptions cannot be implicit together; they contradict each other. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes mistake real life observations such as some drivers ignoring boards for assumptions behind the authority s choice.Another pitfall is failing to notice that assumptions for a policy are usually optimistic about its impact, not pessimistic. Final Answer: Hence only the first assumption is implicit in the decision to install warning boards, so the correct answer is If only assumption I is Implicit.

Question 9

The office building needs repairing just as urgently as it needs internal as well as external painting. On the basis of this statement, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Efficiency of people working in the office cannot be improved…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns a statement about the physical condition of an office building. The statement says that the building needs repairing and also needs internal and external painting, both urgently. Assumptions are hidden beliefs that must be taken as true for the statement to be meaningful. We must decide whether the statement is based on assumptions about employee efficiency and about the financial implications of repair and painting. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The office building urgently needs repair, and it also needs internal and external painting. Assumption 1: Efficiency of people working in the office cannot be improved unless the building is repaired. Assumption 2: Repairing and painting of the office building will require funds. The focus is on physical condition and maintenance needs of the building. Concept / Approach: The statement simply comments on the physical needs of the building; it does not explicitly mention worker efficiency or performance. Although better surroundings may improve efficiency, the statement does not depend on that link. It could be made purely for aesthetic or safety reasons. Therefore the statement does not necessarily assume that efficiency cannot improve without repairing. On the other hand, whenever someone talks about repairing and painting a building, especially in an organisational context, it is understood that such work will cost money. The need for funds is a basic and relevant assumption behind any maintenance decision. We must therefore see which assumption is truly required by the statement and which is not. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption 1. The statement does not discuss employee performance or productivity at all.Step 2: The building might need repair to prevent structural damage or peeling paint, even if employee efficiency stays unchanged.Step 3: Therefore the statement can stand without believing that efficiency cannot improve unless repair takes place, so Assumption 1 is not implicit.Step 4: Consider Assumption 2. Any repair and painting activity in an office requires materials, labour, and other resources, all of which need money.Step 5: Hence, when one says the building needs urgent repair and painting, one usually also accepts that funds will need to be arranged, so Assumption 2 is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption 2 and claim that repairing and painting require no money, that would be unrealistic and would undermine the practical meaning of the statement.If we deny Assumption 1, saying efficiency might be independent of repairs, the statement about physical need still remains meaningful.Therefore only the second assumption is necessary for the statement to make practical sense. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it chooses only Assumption 1, which is not required.Option C is wrong because it suggests either assumption alone is necessary, but Assumption 1 is clearly not needed.Option D is wrong because at least one assumption, about the need for funds, is clearly implicit. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to read extra objectives like improving efficiency into statements that mention only repair and painting.Another pitfall is to treat obvious practical facts, such as expenses, as not being assumptions, even though they are essential in organisational contexts. Final Answer: Hence only the second assumption is implicit in the given statement, so the correct answer is Only 2 is true.

Question 10

Consider the conditional statement: "If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. To pass the examination, he must be intelligent. 2. He will definitely pass the examination.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests understanding of assumptions behind a conditional statement. The statement says, "If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination." In logic this means that intelligence is a sufficient condition for passing, according to the speaker. Assumptions are the ideas that must be true in the background for the speaker to make such a statement. We must decide whether the speaker is assuming that intelligence is the only way to pass and whether the speaker assumes that he will in fact pass the examination. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: If he is intelligent, he will pass the examination. Assumption 1: To pass the examination, he must be intelligent. Assumption 2: He will pass the examination. The statement does not directly say anything about other qualities like hard work or luck. Concept / Approach: The original sentence is a conditional statement of the form "If condition, then result." It does not say that the condition is necessary; it only claims that if the condition holds, the result will follow. So, when the speaker says that intelligence will lead to passing, it does not automatically mean that passing is impossible without intelligence. It also does not assert that the condition is actually true for this person. The speaker is not guaranteed that he is intelligent, only stating a possible link. Therefore, neither of the two given assumptions must be taken as true for the statement itself to make sense. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate Assumption 1. It states that to pass, he must be intelligent, which means intelligence is a necessary condition.Step 2: The original statement only says that if he is intelligent, he will pass, which makes intelligence a sufficient condition, not necessarily the only condition.Step 3: The statement remains meaningful even if a non intelligent but very hard working candidate might pass, so Assumption 1 is not implicit.Step 4: Evaluate Assumption 2. It claims that he will in fact pass the examination.Step 5: The statement is hypothetical. It does not say that he is intelligent, only that if he is intelligent, then he will pass, so the speaker need not assume that he will definitely pass. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption 1 and allow that some students pass without being intelligent, the given statement about intelligence still makes sense as a special case.If we deny Assumption 2 and admit that he may fail, the statement continues to be valid as a conditional relation, not a prediction.Thus the original statement does not depend on either Assumption 1 or Assumption 2 being true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it treats a sufficient condition as if it were a necessary condition, which is not implied.Option B is wrong because the statement is not a guarantee that he will pass; it only links passing to a condition that may or may not hold.Option C is wrong because neither assumption is essential, so it is not a case where one or the other must be true. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse necessary and sufficient conditions and assume that "if A then B" also means "if B then A," which is not valid.Another pitfall is reading extra information into simple conditionals, such as assuming that the condition actually holds in the real situation. Final Answer: Therefore, the statement does not require either of the two given assumptions, and the correct answer is Neither 1 nor 2 is true.

Question 11

A tells B, "I would like to study the impact of pay revision on job satisfaction of employees." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Pay revision may have an impact on the level of job satisfaction among employees. 2. A…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question is about a proposed study in human resources. A says that he or she would like to study the impact of pay revision on job satisfaction of employees. Assumptions here relate to why this topic is chosen and whether A can carry out such a study. We must identify which assumptions must be true for A s statement to be reasonable and meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: A says, "I would like to study the impact of pay revision on job satisfaction of employees." Assumption 1: Pay revision may influence or affect the job satisfaction levels of employees. Assumption 2: A has the necessary competence, knowledge, and resources to undertake such a study. The topic connects pay policies with employee attitudes and satisfaction. Concept / Approach: When someone chooses a research topic, they typically assume that there is a possible relationship worth exploring. If A did not believe that changes in pay could affect job satisfaction, there would be no point in studying that impact. Therefore Assumption 1 is clearly implicit. In addition, when A expresses the intention to carry out the study personally, it is natural to assume that A believes he or she has or can obtain the competence to do it. If A felt completely incapable, this statement would be unrealistic. So Assumption 2 is also implicit. Our goal is to see that both assumptions are required, not just one. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption 1. A announces an interest in studying how pay revision affects job satisfaction.Step 2: This only makes sense if A believes such impact may exist; otherwise the study would be meaningless and the statement would be pointless.Step 3: Consider Assumption 2. By expressing intent to conduct the study, A implicitly believes that he or she has the ability, skills, or access to data and methods required.Step 4: If A believed that he or she had no competence to carry out such a study, A would either remain silent or suggest that someone else should do the study.Step 5: Hence both assumptions are logically present in the background of A s statement. Verification / Alternative check: If Assumption 1 is denied and pay revision is believed to have no relation to job satisfaction at all, the proposed study becomes useless, which contradicts A s interest.If Assumption 2 is denied and A is assumed to lack any competence, the statement about A personally studying the topic loses credibility.Thus, both assumptions are necessary for the statement to be realistic and sensible. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it ignores the clear implication that A intends to carry out the study and must see himself or herself as capable.Option B is wrong because it ignores the essential idea that pay revision could affect job satisfaction, which is the core of the intended study.Option C is wrong because it suggests only one assumption is needed, but we have seen that both are required. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to treat researcher competence as separate and not as an assumption when a person volunteers to carry out a study.Another pitfall is to think that only the existence of a relationship is assumed, while ignoring the practical side of who will conduct the research. Final Answer: Therefore both assumptions are implicit in A s statement, and the correct answer is Both 1 and 2 follow.

Question 12

The statement says, "Retired persons should not be appointed for the posts in organisations." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Retired persons may lack the zeal and commitment required to carry out executive work. 2…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with assumptions behind a recommendation about employment. The statement suggests that retired persons should not be appointed to posts in organisations. The assumptions relate to the perceived attitude and capacity of retired persons. We must identify which assumption the statement depends on, without adding extra prejudice or extreme views that go beyond what is needed to justify the recommendation. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Retired persons should not be appointed for posts in organisations. Assumption 1: Retired persons may lack zeal and commitment to effectively carry out executive work. Assumption 2: Retired persons do not take interest in the work and welfare of new organisations at all. The statement is a general recommendation, not a description of particular individuals. Concept / Approach: To recommend that retired persons should not be appointed, the speaker must believe that there is some risk or drawback in appointing them. A natural assumption is that retired persons may lack energy, initiative, or commitment compared to younger employees. That idea is reflected in Assumption 1. Assumption 2, however, is much stronger, claiming that retired persons do not take any interest in work or organisational welfare. Such an absolute claim is not necessary for the statement; it is enough if retired persons are seen as less suitable on average. Therefore, we have to see that one moderate assumption is sufficient, while the extreme one is not required. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the reasoning behind the recommendation. If the speaker felt that retired persons work as energetically as others, there would be no need to exclude them completely.Step 2: Assumption 1 provides a reasonable explanation: some retired persons may lack zeal and commitment, which can affect executive responsibilities.Step 3: The statement does not require that retired persons have zero interest; it only suggests that they are not the best choice for appointments.Step 4: Assumption 2 claims that retired persons do not take interest in work and welfare of new organisations at all, which is an extreme and unrealistic generalisation.Step 5: Since the recommendation can be based on milder concerns, Assumption 2 is not necessary for the statement to hold. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption 1 and say retired persons always have full zeal and commitment, the recommendation would become baseless.If we deny Assumption 2 and accept that some retired persons do show interest in organisational welfare, the recommendation can still stand on the belief in average lower zeal.Hence only Assumption 1 is implicit, while Assumption 2 is too strong and not needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B is wrong because the statement does not require such an extreme and negative belief about retired persons.Option C is wrong because the statement clearly needs Assumption 1, while Assumption 2 is not required.Option D is wrong because at least one assumption, the first one, is clearly implied by the recommendation. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that a recommendation must always be based on the strongest and most negative statement, which is not necessary.Another pitfall is failing to distinguish between a moderate concern (may lack zeal) and total lack of interest, which is rarely required as an assumption. Final Answer: Thus only the first assumption is implicit in the recommendation, so the correct answer is Only 1 is true.

Question 13

The civic administration has asked the residents of certain dilapidated buildings to move out, as these buildings will be demolished within the next thirty days. On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. The civic administra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a statement and assumption question about a safety action by civic authorities. The administration has asked residents of dilapidated buildings to move out, because the buildings will be demolished within thirty days. Assumptions concern the ability of the authority to carry out demolition and the willingness or capacity of residents to vacate. We must identify which of these assumptions must be true for the notice to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The civic administration asks residents of unsafe, dilapidated buildings to move out as these buildings will be demolished within thirty days. Assumption I: The administration may be able to demolish the buildings as per the schedule. Assumption II: The residents may vacate the buildings and stay elsewhere within the given period. The purpose is to protect residents from possible building collapse and to clear unsafe structures. Concept / Approach: When authorities set a clear deadline and ask people to vacate, they must believe two things. First, that they will go ahead with demolition after the deadline; otherwise the notice would be an empty threat. Second, that residents can and will find alternative accommodation and move out in time; otherwise the instruction would be unrealistic or cruel. Both assumptions support the action: without demolition capacity, the deadline loses meaning; without expectation of vacating, the notice would not achieve the safety goal. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption I. Setting a specific demolition schedule implies that authorities believe they can arrange contractors, machinery, and legal formalities to demolish on time.Step 2: If the administration thought demolition could not be done, promising to demolish within thirty days would be misleading.Step 3: Consider Assumption II. The notice is addressed to residents, asking them to move out, which implies a belief that they can actually vacate within a month.Step 4: If authorities believed that residents had no chance of leaving in that time, the instruction would be pointless and might cause panic without solving the risk.Step 5: Hence both assumptions are required: the ability to demolish and the expectation that residents will vacate. Verification / Alternative check: Deny Assumption I and suppose demolition is impossible in the near future. Then warning residents about a fixed demolition date would be baseless.Deny Assumption II and suppose residents cannot move out at all. Then the notice would not improve safety, because people would remain in danger despite the instruction.This confirms that both assumptions are implicit in the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because it ignores the essential expectation about residents vacating.Option B is wrong because it ignores the implied ability of the administration to execute the demolition plan.Option C is wrong because the statement needs both assumptions, not just one or the other. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume only administrative ability matters and ignore the practical side about residents relocating.Another pitfall is to think that safety notices can be issued without any realistic plan to enforce them, which is not how assumptions work in these questions. Final Answer: Therefore both assumptions are implicit in the demolition notice, so the correct answer is If both I and II are Implicit.

Question 14

The chairman of a company has urged all employees to refrain from making long personal phone calls during working hours in order to boost productivity. On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. A majority of employees may re…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question is about workplace discipline and productivity. The chairman requests employees not to make long personal calls during working hours. We need to identify what the chairman must be assuming about how employees will react. Assumptions relate to the expected change in behaviour and the purpose of making a public appeal. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The chairman urges all employees to refrain from long personal phone calls during working hours to boost productivity. Assumption I: A majority of employees may respond positively to the chairman s appeal. Assumption II: Most employees may continue to make long personal calls during working hours. The chairman uses an appeal rather than a strict rule or penalty in this instance. Concept / Approach: When a leader issues an appeal, it usually rests on the belief that people respect the authority of the leader and will at least try to comply. So, the chairman likely assumes that many employees will modify their behaviour when requested. If the chairman believed that most employees would ignore the appeal, there would be no point in making it in this form, and he might have chosen direct penalties instead. Hence, Assumption I naturally supports the decision to appeal, while Assumption II contradicts it by suggesting the appeal will largely fail. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption I. The chairman expects a positive response; otherwise such a request would have little value.Step 2: If employees respect the chairman and care about productivity, at least a majority may reduce or stop long personal calls.Step 3: Therefore Assumption I is implicit in the choice to address employees through an appeal.Step 4: Consider Assumption II. It suggests that most employees will keep making long personal calls despite the appeal.Step 5: If the chairman truly believed this, an appeal would be ineffective, and he might directly enforce rules instead, so Assumption II is not implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Deny Assumption I and suppose employees will not listen to the chairman at all; then the appeal would be a waste of effort.Deny Assumption II and suppose most employees will reduce calls; this fits the intention behind the request and the focus on boosting productivity.Thus it is clear that only the first assumption is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B is wrong because it treats defiance and continued misuse of time as the assumption, which goes against the chairman s action.Option C is wrong because the two assumptions cannot be interchanged; one supports the statement, the other undermines it.Option D is wrong because both assumptions cannot be implicit together; they contradict one another. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse what may happen after the appeal with what the chairman assumes when making the appeal.Another pitfall is to think that leaders assume failure when they use mild methods like appeals, which is generally not the case in logical reasoning questions. Final Answer: Therefore only the first assumption is implicit in the chairman s appeal, so the correct answer is If only assumption I is Implicit.

Question 15

The statement says, "Banks should always check the financial status of a client before lending money." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. Checking before lending would give a true picture of the client s financial sta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question concerns banking practice and credit risk. The statement recommends that banks should always check financial status before granting a loan. Assumptions here relate to the usefulness of checking and the possibility of clients misrepresenting their situation. We must decide which assumptions are necessary for this recommendation to be sensible and effective. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Banks should always check the financial status of a client before lending money. Assumption I: Checking before lending would give a true or sufficiently accurate picture of the client s financial status. Assumption II: Clients sometimes may not present the correct picture of their ability to repay the loan amount. Banks want to reduce the risk of non repayment and bad loans. Concept / Approach: For the recommendation to make sense, banks must believe that independent checking will reveal information that is more reliable than what clients informally convey. If checking could not improve knowledge, it would be a waste. This is captured by Assumption I. At the same time, if clients always gave completely honest and complete information, there would be less need for independent checking. The statement emphasises the importance of checking, suggesting that relying on client statements alone is risky; this is captured by Assumption II. Together, the assumptions show why an independent check adds value and is necessary. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine Assumption I. If verification processes did not produce a true or near true picture, recommending checks would not help in reducing risk.Step 2: Therefore the statement assumes that financial statements, reports, or credit histories obtained through checking are generally reliable.Step 3: Examine Assumption II. The stress on always checking suggests that banks should not rely only on what clients say.Step 4: That makes sense only if there is a chance that some clients hide debts, exaggerate income, or otherwise misrepresent their finances.Step 5: Hence both Assumption I and Assumption II are necessary to justify the recommendation. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption I and say checking does not reveal a true picture, then checking cannot improve lending decisions and the advice loses meaning.If we deny Assumption II and say clients always present the correct picture, independent checking becomes unnecessary duplication.Thus both assumptions must hold for the statement to be reasonable banking advice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because without Assumption II, client dishonesty or omission would not be a concern, and checking would add little value.Option B is wrong because without Assumption I, even if clients misrepresent, additional checking would still not help.Option C is wrong because the statement does not work with just one assumption; both are needed together. Common Pitfalls: One mistake is to treat one of the assumptions as obvious and forget that both reliability of checks and possible misrepresentation make checks necessary.Another pitfall is to think that banks check only out of habit, not real risk considerations, but reasoning questions expect rational motives. Final Answer: Therefore both assumptions are implicit in the recommendation, so the correct answer is If both I and II are Implicit.

Question 16

Statement: "Let there be a signboard also indicating the directions and instructions." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? a) A signboard can be prepared without using any language. b) A signboard is the only effective to…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question is about the use of a signboard to indicate directions and instructions. The speaker suggests that there should also be a signboard. We are given two possible assumptions about signboards and must decide whether any of them are actually implied by the statement. Many assumption questions check whether we can distinguish between what is merely possible and what is strictly required for the statement to be reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Let there be a signboard also indicating the directions and instructions. Assumption a: A signboard can be prepared without using any language. Assumption b: A signboard is the only effective tool to indicate directions. The context suggests that signboards are one of the tools for guiding people. Concept / Approach: The statement simply proposes adding a signboard as an additional method of giving directions and instructions. It does not say anything about how the signboard will be prepared, whether it must avoid language, or whether it is the only tool that can be effective. Many signboards do use written language, arrows, symbols, or a combination. Also, directions can be given verbally, through maps, or using digital displays. Hence neither of the two given assumptions is necessary for the statement. The statement only assumes that a signboard is a useful tool, not that it is language free or uniquely effective. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Assumption a. The statement does not suggest that language will not be used; it only says let there be a signboard indicating directions.Step 2: The signboard could use text, arrows, colours, or symbols, so the assumption that it can be prepared without language is not required.Step 3: Consider Assumption b. The statement does not say that signboards are the only effective tool, only that a signboard should also be used.Step 4: Other tools like spoken announcements or digital displays may already be in use, and the signboard is an additional aid.Step 5: Therefore neither assumption a nor assumption b is implicit in the statement. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption a and accept that language will be used, the statement still remains perfectly meaningful.If we deny Assumption b and accept that other tools can also work, the statement still makes sense as it says let there be a signboard also.So the statement does not logically depend on either assumption a or assumption b. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B is wrong because there is no need to assume the signboard will avoid language.Option C is wrong because suggesting a signboard does not imply that it is the only effective tool.Option D is wrong because both assumptions together are still not required by the statement. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes read extra technical details into simple suggestions like installing a signboard.Another pitfall is to misinterpret the word also as meaning only, which completely changes the assumption analysis. Final Answer: Since neither assumption is necessary, the correct option is Both a and b are not sufficient.

Question 17

The statement says, "In Bombay, railway trains are indispensable for people in the suburbs to reach their places of work on time." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? 1. Railway trains are the only mode of transport avail…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines assumptions behind a statement about public transport in Bombay suburbs. The statement calls railway trains indispensable for people to reach work on time. The key phrase is indispensable, which means very necessary. We must decide whether this implies that trains are the only available transport, or that only trains are punctual, or whether neither of those strong claims is actually assumed by the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: In Bombay, railway trains are indispensable for people in the suburbs to reach their places of work on time. Assumption 1: Railway trains are the only mode of transport available in the suburbs. Assumption 2: Only railway trains run punctually enough to allow people to reach work on time. Suburban commuters often have access to buses, taxis, or other vehicles. Concept / Approach: Indispensable in this context means essential or very important, not necessarily exclusive. It suggests that without trains, it would be very difficult for most people to reach work on time. This can be due to capacity, cost, or convenience, not because trains are literally the only option or the only punctual service. Other modes may exist but may be too slow, costly, or crowded to serve the majority. Therefore, we should see that the statement does not require either assumption 1 or assumption 2 in their absolute form. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine Assumption 1. The existence of other modes like buses or taxis does not contradict the statement, as they may not be sufficient for all commuters.Step 2: The statement only claims that trains are indispensable, not that they are the only mode of transport, so Assumption 1 is not implicit.Step 3: Examine Assumption 2. Other modes may also run punctually in some cases; trains may still be indispensable because they can carry large numbers or are more affordable.Step 4: The statement does not insist that only trains are punctual; it simply says people depend on them to reach work on time.Step 5: Therefore neither of the two strong assumptions is necessarily implied by the original statement. Verification / Alternative check: Assume there are buses and taxis in the suburbs but they cannot handle commuter volume effectively. Trains would still be indispensable without being the only mode available.Assume some buses are punctual, but still cannot carry as many people as trains. Trains remain essential for timely commute for most people; again the statement stands without Assumption 2.Thus the original statement does not depend on either assumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because the statement does not claim exclusivity of trains, only their essential role.Option B is wrong because it is not necessary to believe that only trains are punctual to call them indispensable.Option C is wrong because the statement does not require at least one of the two assumptions to be true; both can be false while the statement remains valid. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to read indispensable as only and then infer that no alternative exists.Another pitfall is to introduce extra conditions like punctuality as unique to trains, even when the original statement does not mention them explicitly. Final Answer: Hence neither assumption is implicit in the given statement, and the correct answer is Neither 1 nor 2 is true.

Question 18

The statement says, "If farmers want to improve their yield, they must use organic fertilizers in place of chemical fertilizers." On this basis, which of the following assumptions are implicit? I. Chemical fertilizers have certain ill effects on hea…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This statement and assumption question deals with agricultural practices and crop yield. The statement claims that farmers must use organic fertilizers instead of chemical fertilizers if they want to improve their yield. Assumptions relate to why organic fertilizers are recommended. We must decide whether concerns about health and relative yield are implied by the statement, or whether only one of them is necessary for the reasoning. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: If farmers want to improve their yield, they must use organic fertilizers in place of chemical fertilizers. Assumption I: Chemical fertilizers have certain ill effects on health. Assumption II: Chemical fertilizers do not produce as much yield as organic fertilizers. The focus of the statement is on improving yield, not directly on health. Concept / Approach: The key idea is that the stated goal is higher yield, not health safety. The recommendation is based on the belief that changing from chemical to organic fertilizers will increase yield. That belief is captured in Assumption II. Whether chemical fertilizers have ill effects on health may be true in real life, but it is not used in the reasoning here, because the statement makes no mention of health; it only connects fertilizer choice to yield improvement. Therefore, Assumption I is not necessary for the statement to be meaningful, while Assumption II is central to the logic. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the main link: farmers want better yield, and the advice is to use organic instead of chemical fertilizers.Step 2: This link makes sense only if the speaker believes that organic fertilizers give better yield than chemical fertilizers.Step 3: That belief is exactly what Assumption II states and is therefore implicit.Step 4: Assumption I talks about ill effects of chemical fertilizers on health.Step 5: Health is not mentioned in the statement; the recommendation is purely about improving yield, so Assumption I is not required for the argument to work. Verification / Alternative check: If we deny Assumption II and say chemical fertilizers produce equal or higher yields than organic fertilizers, then the advice to switch in order to improve yield would be baseless.If we deny Assumption I and say chemical fertilizers have no ill effects on health, the statement, which is only about yield, remains logically consistent.Thus only Assumption II is necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because health effects are not used as a reason in the statement; they are outside the scope of the given reasoning.Option C is wrong because Assumption I cannot replace Assumption II for the logic about yield.Option D is wrong because the argument does not depend on health concerns, only on comparative yields. Common Pitfalls: One frequent mistake is to bring in common knowledge that chemical fertilizers may harm health and treat it as part of the logic even when the statement does not mention health.Another pitfall is failing to identify the exact goal in the statement, which here is yield improvement, not environmental or health safety. Final Answer: Therefore only the second assumption is implicit in this recommendation, so the correct answer is If only assumption II is Implicit.

Question 19

Consider the following argument as true and decide which of the given assumptions is implicit. Argument: Public smoking is an offence under the law. Assumptions: (1) Smoking is injurious to the health of the person who smokes. (2) Smoke is injurious…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question tests your understanding of implicit assumptions behind a legal rule. The given argument states that public smoking is an offence under the law. You must decide which assumptions are necessarily taken for granted in order for this argument to make sense. Recognising implicit assumptions is important in critical reasoning, because they reveal the hidden beliefs that support the explicit statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument: Public smoking is an offence under the law. Assumption 1: Smoking is injurious to the health of the person who smokes. Assumption 2: Smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places (passive smokers). We must decide which of these assumptions is logically required for the law to treat public smoking as an offence. Concept / Approach: Laws that specifically ban a behaviour in public usually focus on harm to other people or to society, not only on self harm. Therefore, when public smoking is declared an offence, the law is likely based on the idea that second hand smoke harms bystanders who have not chosen to smoke. An assumption is implicit if the argument depends on it, even if it is not stated. An assumption is not implicit if the argument could still stand without it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The argument says that public smoking is an offence. This is a legal restriction on smoking in public spaces.Step 2: Ask why the law would focus on public smoking rather than all smoking. The key difference is that in public places, other people are forced to inhale the smoke.Step 3: Assumption 2 states that smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places. If this were not true, there would be little reason to single out public smoking as an offence. The law could simply focus on educating smokers, rather than criminalising behaviour that affects only themselves.Step 4: Therefore, the idea that second hand smoke harms bystanders is necessary for the argument that public smoking should be a legal offence.Step 5: Assumption 1 says that smoking harms the smoker. This may be true, but it is not essential for the specific legal rule about public smoking. A government might still outlaw public smoking even if it did not care about self harm, simply to protect non smokers from involuntary exposure.Step 6: Hence the argument depends on assumption 2, but not necessarily on assumption 1. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a world where smoking does not harm the smoker at all but does harm nearby non smokers. In that world, public smoking would still reasonably be an offence because it harms others. Now imagine the opposite world where smoking harms only the smoker but has no effect on others. In that case, the justification for making public smoking a legal offence becomes much weaker, because bystanders are not affected. This confirms that assumption 2 is central, while assumption 1 is not required for the given argument. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Both assumptions being implicit is incorrect, because the argument can stand without relying on harm to the smoker. Option b: Only assumption 1 is implicit is wrong, since the legal focus on public spaces is driven by harm to others, not only self harm. Option d: Neither assumption is implicit ignores the clear need to assume that second hand smoke harms people in public places. Option e: This is a vague restatement and does not correctly identify which assumption is needed. Common Pitfalls: Confusing what is medically true with what is logically necessary for the argument. Both assumptions may be factually true, but only one is logically required here. Thinking that every fact mentioned around smoking must be assumed, instead of focusing on what specifically justifies public smoking as a legal offence. Ignoring the difference between harm to self and harm to others, which is crucial in public law questions. Final Answer: The only assumption that is logically implicit is that smoke is injurious even to the health of other people in public places.

Question 20

Which of the following statements is sufficient to answer the question: “Find the sum of the first 10 numbers in the series”? Statement I: The first number of the series is 2 and the tenth number is 20. Statement II: The common difference of the ser…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a data sufficiency problem involving an arithmetic series. You are not asked to compute the actual numerical sum, but to determine which given information is enough to calculate that sum. Understanding the structure of arithmetic progressions and how to use the formula for the sum of the first n terms is essential to solve this type of question efficiently. Given Data / Assumptions: Question: Find the sum of the first 10 numbers in the series. Statement I: The first number is 2 and the tenth number is 20. Statement II: The common difference of the series is 2. We treat the series as an arithmetic progression unless stated otherwise, which is the standard interpretation in such questions. Concept / Approach: For an arithmetic progression, the sum of the first n terms is given by Sn = n * (first term + nth term) / 2. To find the sum of the first 10 terms, you only need the first term and the tenth term. If you are given the first term and the common difference, you can also compute the tenth term and hence the sum. However, being given only the common difference without any term value is not enough, because the entire series could be shifted up or down by a constant and still have the same common difference. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement I, we know the first term a1 = 2 and the tenth term a10 = 20.Step 2: For an arithmetic progression, the sum of the first 10 terms is S10 = 10 * (a1 + a10) / 2.Step 3: Because both a1 and a10 are given in Statement I, we can directly compute S10. Hence Statement I alone is sufficient.Step 4: From Statement II, we only know that the common difference d = 2. We do not know the first term or any specific term value.Step 5: Many different arithmetic series share the same common difference of 2. For example, the series could be 2, 4, 6, ... or 5, 7, 9, ... or negative values. Each would have a different sum for the first 10 terms.Step 6: Therefore Statement II alone is not sufficient to determine the sum.Step 7: Since Statement I is already sufficient by itself, combining it with Statement II is unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: Using Statement I, you can also derive the common difference if needed: d = (a10 - a1) / 9 = (20 - 2) / 9 = 2. This confirms that the series is indeed arithmetic with d = 2. Then S10 can be computed consistently. On the other hand, if you start only with d = 2 and no term values, there is an infinite number of possible series and sums, confirming that Statement II alone is insufficient. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Only Statement II is sufficient is incorrect because knowing only the common difference does not fix the series or the sum. Option c: Both statements together are sufficient suggests that neither alone works, which is not true since Statement I is already enough. Option d: Either statement alone is sufficient is wrong because Statement II alone is not sufficient. Option e: Neither statement is sufficient contradicts the clear sufficiency of Statement I. Common Pitfalls: Confusing what is needed to compute the sum of an arithmetic series and thinking that the common difference alone is enough. Misreading Statement I and not recognising that the tenth number given is exactly the term required in the sum formula. Assuming that every series with a fixed common difference must start from a fixed first term, which is not true. Final Answer: Only statement I is sufficient to determine the sum of the first 10 numbers in the series.

Statement and Assumption Questions