Question 1

Residents of Ramnagar appeal to the city bus company: “If the city bus which runs between Ramnagar and Sant Colony is extended to Vasant Vihar, it will be convenient for us.” Consider this appeal as true and decide which of the given assumptions is …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of implicit assumptions in a public appeal. The residents of Ramnagar are requesting that the existing city bus route between Ramnagar and Sant Colony be extended to Vasant Vihar because they believe it will be more convenient. You must decide whether certain negative statements about the bus company are assumptions behind this appeal or not. Distinguishing between the content of an appeal and critical comments that are not logically required is a key critical reasoning skill. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement (Appeal): If the city bus which runs between Ramnagar and Sant Colony is extended to Vasant Vihar, it will be convenient. Assumption 1: The convenience of the city bus company is much more important than the needs of consumers. Assumption 2: The city bus company is indifferent to the aspirations of the residents of Sant Colony. We must decide which of these, if any, is logically taken for granted by the residents when they make the appeal. Concept / Approach: An assumption is something that must be true for the statement or appeal to make sense. It is not simply any opinion or criticism that might be related. Here, the residents are asking for an extension of the route in order to increase convenience. For this appeal to be meaningful, we assume that the company can in principle adjust routes and that greater convenience is desirable. We do not need to assume anything about whether the company values its own convenience more than that of passengers, nor that it is indifferent to others. Those are negative judgments, not logical foundations of the appeal. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The key idea in the appeal is convenience for Ramnagar residents if the route is extended to Vasant Vihar.Step 2: For the appeal to be sensible, the residents must assume that the bus company is capable of extending the route and may consider passengers needs.Step 3: Assumption 1 claims that the convenience of the bus company is much more important than passenger needs. This is a negative value judgment about the company and directly clashes with the spirit of the appeal, which hopes the company will care about passengers.Step 4: If the residents truly believed Assumption 1, they might still appeal, but it is not required for the appeal. In fact, the appeal requires exactly the opposite hope that passenger convenience will be considered.Step 5: Assumption 2 claims that the bus company is indifferent to the aspirations of the residents of Sant Colony. Again, this is a critical comment about the company and residents of another area. The appeal does not need to take any stance on the aspirations of Sant Colony residents.Step 6: The appeal is about extending the existing route further to Vasant Vihar, not about ignoring Sant Colony. Thus, Assumption 2 is not logically necessary either.Step 7: Therefore neither Assumption 1 nor Assumption 2 is implicit in the appeal. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a situation where the bus company does value passenger needs and is very responsive. The residents could still make the same appeal for convenience. This shows that Assumption 1 is not necessary. Similarly, whether or not the company is indifferent to Sant Colony residents, the appeal about extending the route remains fully meaningful. Thus, the core logic of the appeal does not depend on either Assumption 1 or Assumption 2. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a and option b incorrectly claim that one of the negative statements is implicit, but neither is required for the appeal to make sense. Option d states that both are implicit, which is even stronger and clearly not justified. Option e adds an unnecessary idea about contradiction without correctly addressing which assumptions are needed. Common Pitfalls: Confusing emotional or critical statements about an organisation with logical assumptions underlying a request. Thinking that any sentence involving the bus company must be an assumption, rather than asking whether the appeal fails without it. Over interpreting the appeal to include negative attitudes that are not actually expressed or required. Final Answer: Neither assumption 1 nor assumption 2 is implicit in the residents appeal.

Question 2

Statement: “If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you.” Consider this recruitment statement and decide which of the given assumptions is implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about identifying assumptions in a recruitment style statement. The organisation says, If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you. You must decide which underlying ideas are taken for granted. Such questions teach you to see the difference between what is explicitly stated and what must be silently assumed for the statement to be meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you. Assumption 1: The organisation needs an engineer. Assumption 2: You are an engineer. We must decide which of these assumptions the statement relies on. Concept / Approach: The statement is conditional. It does not assert that you definitely are an engineer, but it offers a job on the condition that you are. When an advertisement says If you have qualification X, we have an opportunity for you, the implicit assumption is that they indeed require someone with qualification X. They do not assume that every reader already has that qualification. Therefore, we look for assumptions about the employer's needs rather than about the candidate's identity. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The organisation says they have a challenging job for you if you are an engineer. This suggests that the job requires engineering skills.Step 2: For such a statement to be meaningful, the organisation must assume that it needs an engineer to fill that job. Otherwise there would be no reason to mention engineers specifically.Step 3: That idea is exactly what is expressed in Assumption 1: We need an engineer. Hence Assumption 1 is implicit.Step 4: Consider Assumption 2: You are an engineer. The statement does not presuppose that the person addressed already is an engineer; instead, it invites anyone who is an engineer to apply.Step 5: The conditional wording If you are an engineer clearly leaves open the possibility that the listener is not an engineer. Therefore the statement does not rely on the belief that the listener actually is an engineer.Step 6: Thus Assumption 2 is not implicit, while Assumption 1 is. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the organisation does not need an engineer at all. In that case, the statement If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you would be pointless and misleading. So Assumption 1 must hold. Now imagine the person reading the statement is a school student who is not an engineer. The organisation can still make the same statement in an advertisement, and it remains logically fine. This shows that the statement does not depend on believing that the specific reader is an engineer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because Assumption 2 is not required for the statement to make sense. Option c is wrong because the statement clearly depends on Assumption 1 and not on Assumption 2. Option d is wrong because there is at least one necessary assumption, namely Assumption 1. Option e is wrong because it incorrectly includes Assumption 2. Common Pitfalls: Misreading conditional statements and thinking that the speaker believes the condition is already satisfied. Confusing the target audience of a statement with the assumptions about any one individual listener. Assuming both given assumptions must be used, instead of checking each separately. Final Answer: The statement implicitly assumes that the organisation needs an engineer, so only assumption 1 is implicit.

Question 3

Consider the following statements as true and decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn. Statements: Politicians marry only beautiful girls. X is beautiful. Conclusions: (1) X will marry a politician. (2) X will not marry a polit…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about logical inference from given statements. The statement about politicians and beautiful girls specifies a condition on whom politicians marry, and then you are told that X is beautiful. You must determine which conclusions about X's future marriage follow logically. This type of problem tests understanding of the difference between one way and two way conditions in logic. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Politicians marry only beautiful girls. Statement: X is beautiful. Conclusion 1: X will marry a politician. Conclusion 2: X will not marry a politician. You must decide which conclusions follow necessarily from the statements. Concept / Approach: The key phrase marry only beautiful girls means: if someone is a politician and marries, then the person he marries is beautiful. Symbolically, Politician spouse implies Beautiful. This does not say that every beautiful girl marries a politician. That would require the reverse condition: if someone is beautiful, then she marries a politician, which is not stated. When a statement is one directional, you cannot reverse it. Therefore, knowing that X is beautiful does not guarantee that X will marry a politician or that X will not marry a politician. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Translate the first statement. Politicians marry only beautiful girls means: For any politician, his wife is beautiful.Step 2: Note that this restriction is about politicians and their choice of spouse, not about all beautiful girls and the husbands they will marry.Step 3: The second statement simply tells us that X is beautiful.Step 4: Conclusion 1 states that X will marry a politician. For this to follow, we would need the rule that all beautiful girls marry politicians. We have no such rule. Many beautiful girls may marry non politicians.Step 5: Therefore conclusion 1 does not logically follow.Step 6: Conclusion 2 states that X will not marry a politician. This also cannot be deduced, because X might marry a politician or might not. The given statements do not restrict X's choice in that way.Step 7: As we cannot determine whether X will or will not marry a politician, neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 definitely follows from the statements. Verification / Alternative check: Consider two different possible worlds that fit the given statements. In World A, X is beautiful and later marries a politician. This is allowed because politicians marry only beautiful girls. In World B, X is beautiful and marries a doctor who is not a politician. This is also allowed because there is no statement that restricts whom beautiful girls may marry. Since both worlds are consistent with the premises but give opposite outcomes for X’s spouse, no definite conclusion about X’s marriage partner can be drawn. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b claims only conclusion 2 follows, suggesting X definitely will not marry a politician, which is not supported by the premises. Option c suggests that one of the two conclusions must hold, but we cannot determine which; however, the question is about what can be definitely concluded from the premises, not about what must happen in real life. Option d claims conclusion 1 follows, wrongly treating the statement as if all beautiful girls must marry politicians. Option e claims both conclusions follow, which is impossible since they contradict each other. Common Pitfalls: Reversing the logical direction of the statement politicians marry only beautiful girls and treating it as beautiful girls marry only politicians. Assuming that being beautiful completely determines whom X will marry. Forgetting that logical follow means guaranteed by the premises, not just possible or plausible in real life. Final Answer: Neither conclusion 1 nor conclusion 2 follows from the given statements.

Question 4

Consider the following argument as true and decide which of the given assumptions is implicit. Argument: The Best Bus Travels company has decided to increase its fare by 10 percent. Assumptions: (1) Passengers may opt for other buses that cost less …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This critical reasoning question focuses on assumptions behind a business decision. The Best Bus Travels company has decided to raise its fare by 10 percent. You are asked whether certain statements about passenger behaviour are assumptions implicit in this decision. Understanding what a decision logically presupposes, as opposed to what might simply be possible consequences, is the core skill being tested. Given Data / Assumptions: Argument: The Best Bus Travels company has decided to increase its fare by 10 percent. Assumption 1: Passengers may opt for other buses that cost less than the Best Bus Travels company. Assumption 2: The demand for the buses of this company may remain unchanged even after the fare hike. Task: Decide which of these are implicitly assumed in the decision to increase fares. Concept / Approach: An implicit assumption is something that must be taken for granted for the decision or statement to make sense. When a firm increases its prices, it might analyse several possible outcomes: demand might fall, might remain the same, or might even increase due to perceived quality. However, none of these specific outcomes is logically forced to be assumed just to make the decision. The decision simply assumes that a fare increase is acceptable and potentially beneficial, regardless of which detailed demand scenario actually occurs within reasonable limits. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The key fact is that the company has decided to increase its fare by 10 percent.Step 2: For this decision, the company might have considered many possibilities: some passengers may leave, some may stay, or overall revenue may change.Step 3: Assumption 1 states that passengers may opt for other cheaper buses. This is a possible reaction, but the company does not have to assume this will happen in order to decide on a fare hike.Step 4: In fact, management might hope that most passengers will stay despite the increase. Whether some passengers leave or not is an uncertain outcome, not an underlying assumption.Step 5: Assumption 2 states that the demand for the buses may remain unchanged after the fare hike. Again, this is only one possible scenario among several. The company might be expecting a small drop in demand or a small increase in revenue even with some loss of passengers.Step 6: The decision to raise fares does not logically require the belief that demand will remain unchanged; it only requires a belief that the net outcome is acceptable, which could include many combinations of demand and fare level.Step 7: Therefore neither Assumption 1 nor Assumption 2 is strictly implicit. They describe possible consequences, not necessary presuppositions. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine three scenarios that fit the decision. Scenario A: The company believes demand will hardly change, so total revenue rises. Scenario B: The company expects some passengers to switch to cheaper buses, but revenue still rises enough to justify the decision. Scenario C: The company raises fares temporarily during peak season when demand is inelastic. In all three scenarios, the decision to raise fares is rational, but only in scenario A does Assumption 2 hold, and Assumption 1 may or may not hold. This shows the decision does not rely on either assumption as a must. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a claims both assumptions are implicit, but as seen, the decision can be made without committing to either specific demand reaction. Option b and option c incorrectly treat one of the demand scenarios as necessary for the decision, which is not justified. Option e adds a claim about truth values which goes beyond what is asked and still does not correctly capture the notion of implicit assumptions. Common Pitfalls: Confusing possible outcomes (what may happen) with assumptions (what must be believed for the step to be reasonable). Thinking that every plausible reaction of passengers must have been assumed by the company. Over interpreting the decision as if it guarantees or presupposes a very precise demand response. Final Answer: Neither assumption 1 nor assumption 2 is implicit in the company's decision to increase fares by 10 percent.

Question 5

Consider the statement “School students are more influenced by their faculty nowadays.” Decide which of the following assumptions is implicit in this statement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to identify assumptions behind a general observation about school students. The statement says that school students are more influenced by their faculty nowadays. You need to check which proposed assumptions are taken for granted when making this claim. This involves understanding what must be true in the background for the statement to be meaningful and reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: School students are more influenced by their faculty nowadays. Assumption I: School students consider their faculty as role models. Assumption II: More time is spent at schools by students. Task: Decide which of these assumptions is implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: When we say that one group is more influenced by another, it usually implies that they look up to that group, respect them, or at least give weight to their words and actions. That is very close to the idea of seeing them as role models. On the other hand, simply spending more time somewhere does not automatically mean influence; quality and type of interaction matter. An assumption is implicit only if the statement would lose its strength or meaning without it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The statement focuses on influence, not directly on time spent in school.Step 2: For faculty to influence students significantly, it is reasonable to assume that students regard them as important figures whose behaviour and advice are worth copying or following.Step 3: Assumption I states that school students consider their faculty as role models. This fits naturally: if faculty influence students more, they are likely being seen as models to emulate.Step 4: Without this assumption, the claim of strong influence would be weak. If students did not respect or look up to their teachers in any way, saying that they are more influenced by them would sound odd.Step 5: Assumption II says that more time is spent at schools by students. The statement does not discuss time and does not require that students spend more time at school than before.Step 6: Influence can increase through changes in teaching style, social media presence of teachers, mentorship programs, or other factors even if time spent at school stays the same.Step 7: Therefore, while Assumption II might be true in some contexts, it is not necessary for the statement that students are more influenced by faculty nowadays. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a scenario where students spend the same number of hours in school as in the past, but the school has invested in better teacher training, mentoring, and counselling. Faculty now interact more effectively with students and are admired by them. In this case, influence grows without any increase in time spent at school, so Assumption II is clearly not essential. Conversely, if students did not see faculty as role models, even long hours together would not necessarily translate into positive influence, confirming that Assumption I is the more fundamental one. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because at least one assumption (Assumption I) is clearly implicit. Option b is wrong because Assumption II is not required for the statement to be meaningful, while ignoring Assumption I. Option d suggests that either assumption could work, which misrepresents the strong connection between influence and role modelling. Option e is wrong because there is no need to assume that students spend more time at school. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that more time spent together automatically means more influence, without considering the quality of the relationship. Ignoring the idea of role models and treating influence as a purely mechanical outcome of time. Confusing what might often be true in real life with what is strictly necessary for the statement to hold. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit: school students consider their faculty as role models.

Question 6

Consider the statement: “The use of antibiotic tablets destabilises the gut bacteria.” Decide which of the following assumptions is or are implicit in this statement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your ability to uncover hidden assumptions behind a scientific sounding statement. The statement claims that the use of antibiotic tablets destabilises the gut bacteria. To interpret this, you must decide whether the existence of friendly gut bacteria or the central importance of gut health for overall health is being taken for granted. Assumption questions often appear in logical reasoning sections to test careful reading and inference. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The use of antibiotic tablets destabilises the gut bacteria. Assumption I: There are friendly (beneficial) bacteria in the gut. Assumption II: Gut health is foremost for overall health. Task: Decide which assumptions are implicit in the given statement. Concept / Approach: When we say that a medicine destabilises gut bacteria, there is a subtle suggestion that this effect matters and that at least some of those bacteria play a positive or balanced role. If gut bacteria were entirely harmful, the wording would usually emphasise that antibiotics help remove harmful organisms, not destabilise the gut. Thus, the presence of some normal or friendly gut flora is a natural underlying assumption. On the other hand, the statement does not explicitly compare gut health with overall health; it simply talks about what antibiotics do locally in the gut. Saying that gut health is foremost for overall health goes beyond what is required for the statement to be meaningful. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the key phrase destabilises the gut bacteria. This suggests that there is an existing balance of bacteria that can be disturbed.Step 2: For there to be a meaningful balance, we must assume the presence of bacteria that have some normal or beneficial role in the gut environment. This is captured in Assumption I, which talks about friendly bacteria in the gut.Step 3: If there were no friendly or normal bacteria at all, then destabilising them would not be a concern in the way described; the statement would likely be framed differently.Step 4: Therefore, Assumption I is implicit: the author assumes there are gut bacteria whose state or balance matters.Step 5: Assumption II says that gut health is foremost for overall health. The original statement only says that antibiotics destabilise gut bacteria, but it does not claim that this effect dominates or determines overall health.Step 6: The statement would still make sense even if gut health were only moderately important or one of many factors affecting overall health. Thus, Assumption II is not strictly necessary for the statement.Step 7: Hence, only Assumption I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a scenario in which scientists have discovered a complex community of bacteria in the gut, some of which are beneficial and help digestion. In that context, it is meaningful to warn that antibiotics can destabilise this community. Now imagine another scenario where gut health is not the single foremost factor in overall health but one of many influences. The warning about antibiotics destabilising gut bacteria still makes complete sense. This shows that Assumption I is required but Assumption II is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because it wrongly includes Assumption II, which is not necessary. Option c is wrong because Assumption II alone is not enough and is not required at all. Option d is wrong because it ignores the clear need to assume the existence of a meaningful gut bacterial community. Option e introduces an extra idea about truth values that is not the focus of the question. Common Pitfalls: Over interpreting the statement and bringing in general health claims that the statement does not actually make. Missing the subtle suggestion that gut bacteria form a balanced community and therefore must include friendly types. Thinking that any health related statement must automatically assume that one factor is foremost for overall health. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit: there are friendly or beneficial bacteria in the gut whose balance can be destabilised by antibiotic tablets.

Question 7

Consider the given statement as true and decide which of the given conclusions can definitely be drawn. Statement: Irregularity is a cause for failure in exams. Some regular students fail in the examinations. Conclusions: I. All failed students are …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question asks you to deduce what can definitely be concluded from a statement about causes of failure and a fact about regular students. The key is to see that the statement mentions one cause of failure, not the only cause, and that the second statement gives information about some regular students only. Over generalising from partial information is a common trap in such problems. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement 1: Irregularity is a cause for failure in exams. Statement 2: Some regular students fail in the examinations. Conclusion I: All failed students are regular. Conclusion II: All successful students are not regular. We must decide which conclusions, if any, definitely follow. Concept / Approach: When we read that irregularity is a cause for failure, it means irregularity contributes to failure, but it does not say it is the only cause. Other causes might exist, and regular students can still fail for different reasons. The phrase some regular students fail tells us about a subset of regular students but not about all failed students or all successful students. We must be careful not to convert some into all or to assume that the stated cause fully explains all outcomes. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement 1, we know that some students who are irregular may fail because of irregularity. However, it does not say that all failures are due to irregularity or that only irregular students fail.Step 2: From Statement 2, we know that some regular students fail. This means regularity alone does not guarantee success; other factors can cause failure even among regular students.Step 3: Consider Conclusion I: All failed students are regular. This would mean that every student who fails belongs to the group of regular students.Step 4: However, since irregularity is a cause of failure, some irregular students may fail. Therefore, there may be failed students who are irregular. Thus, we cannot say that all failed students are regular.Step 5: Therefore Conclusion I does not follow.Step 6: Consider Conclusion II: All successful students are not regular. This says that every successful student must be irregular.Step 7: There is no such information in the statements. Regular students may succeed or fail; we only know that some regular students fail. Many regular students might still pass.Step 8: Hence Conclusion II also does not follow.Step 9: Since neither conclusion is forced by the given statements, the correct choice is that neither follows. Verification / Alternative check: Construct an example that satisfies both given statements but contradicts the conclusions. Suppose there are 100 students. Twenty are irregular and 80 are regular. Most irregular students fail and some regular students fail as well. Then irregularity is a cause of failure, and some regular students fail. Yet among the failed students, some are irregular and some are regular. Thus not all failed students are regular, contradicting Conclusion I. Also, among the successful students, many are regular, contradicting Conclusion II. This shows that both conclusions can be false while the statements remain true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because Conclusion I is too strong and conflicts with the possibility of irregular failed students. Option b is wrong because Conclusion II is also too strong; we have no basis to exclude regular students from being successful. Option c is wrong because both conclusions cannot be assured; they can both be false. Option e is wrong because the statements do not force at least one of the conclusions to be true. Common Pitfalls: Misinterpreting some regular students fail as all regular students fail. Assuming that because irregularity is a cause, it is the only cause of failure. Drawing sweeping conclusions about all failed or all successful students from very limited information. Final Answer: Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows from the given statements.

Question 8

Consider the statement “Laugh and the world will laugh with you.” Decide which of the following is or are assumptions implicit in this proverb like statement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to analyse a well known proverb style statement: Laugh and the world will laugh with you. You must decide which assumptions lie behind this optimistic view of social behaviour. Such proverb based questions test whether you can go beyond the literal wording and identify the attitudes or beliefs that must be taken for granted for the saying to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Laugh and the world will laugh with you. Assumption I: People generally laugh. Assumption II: Laughter symbolises happiness. Task: Decide which of these assumptions is implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: The proverb suggests that if you express joy or positivity, others will share and reflect it. Laughter is used here as a sign of joy or happiness. Thus the central idea is that laughter represents happiness and that happiness is contagious. The assumption that people generally laugh in day to day life is not required; the proverb only needs people to be capable of laughing and responding to someone who laughs. Assumptions must be necessary for the statement to hold, not merely related facts that might often be true. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The core message is that when you laugh, others will laugh with you. This expresses the belief that your positive mood influences others.Step 2: For this to have meaning, laughter must stand for something positive, such as joy, happiness, or a pleasant emotional state. This is captured in Assumption II.Step 3: If laughter did not symbolise happiness, inviting people to laugh with you would not convey the idea of sharing joy. The statement would lose its motivational force.Step 4: Now consider Assumption I: People generally laugh. The proverb does not need to assume that laughter is frequent in everyday life; it only presumes that when someone laughs in a positive context, others may join.Step 5: Even in a very serious society where people rarely laugh, the idea of the proverb could still hold: if you laugh, others will laugh with you, even if this happens rarely.Step 6: Therefore the statement does not logically require Assumption I to be true.Step 7: Hence only Assumption II is implicit in the proverb like statement. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a culture where laughter is considered a neutral noise with no emotional meaning. In that context, the sentence Laugh and the world will laugh with you would not convey the idea that joy spreads and comes back to you. The proverb would lose its sense. This shows that assuming laughter symbolises happiness is essential. On the other hand, imagine a world where people normally stay serious but still laugh when they genuinely feel happy. The proverb can still work: your happiness can make others happy, even if laughter is not common in every moment. So the general frequency of laughter is not a necessary assumption. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because Assumption I is not necessary. Option c is wrong because it incorrectly includes Assumption I along with Assumption II. Option d is wrong because it denies the clear need for Assumption II. Option e goes beyond what is asked and still misrepresents the role of Assumption I. Common Pitfalls: Confusing what is commonly observed (people often laugh) with what is logically necessary for the proverb to function. Ignoring the symbolic meaning of laughter and treating the statement as a purely literal description of laughing behaviour. Assuming that any statement about behaviour must presuppose that behaviour is frequent, rather than simply meaningful. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit: laughter symbolises happiness in the context of this proverb.

Question 9

Statement: “If people are intelligent, they should be creative.” Consider this statement to be true and decide which of the given assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem examines the logical relationship between intelligence and creativity. The statement says that if people are intelligent, they should be creative. You must decide which assumptions are built into this claim. Assumption questions require you to look behind the words and identify the underlying beliefs that make the statement reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: If people are intelligent, they should be creative. Assumption I: Creativity and intelligence are related. Assumption II: Creative people are intelligent. Task: Decide which assumptions follow from or are implicit in the given statement. Concept / Approach: The statement is a conditional: intelligence should be accompanied by creativity. This directly links the two qualities. Saying that intelligent people should be creative implies that intelligence is somehow connected with creativity, at least in the speaker's view. This is very close to Assumption I. However, the statement does not say anything about people who are creative but not necessarily intelligent; that is a different direction of implication. Therefore, we expect Assumption I to be implicit, and Assumption II to go beyond what is justified by the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret the statement. If people are intelligent, they should be creative means that intelligence is expected to express itself partly as creativity.Step 2: This makes sense only if the speaker believes that these two traits are connected. Otherwise, there would be no reason to expect creativity from intelligence.Step 3: Assumption I explicitly states that creativity and intelligence are related. This is exactly the underlying belief that supports the main statement.Step 4: Therefore, Assumption I is implicit.Step 5: Assumption II says that creative people are intelligent. This is the converse of the conditional in the statement.Step 6: The given statement talks only about intelligent people and what they should be like. It does not state or imply that every creative person must be intelligent.Step 7: It is entirely possible under the statement that some creative people may not be particularly intelligent, because the statement does not address that group at all.Step 8: Hence Assumption II does not necessarily follow from the statement and is not implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a world where the speaker believes that intelligence and creativity go hand in hand. In this world, saying If people are intelligent, they should be creative is natural, and Assumption I clearly holds. Now imagine another world where some creative artists are not very strong in conventional measures of intelligence. The original statement can still be true in that world, because it only demands creativity from those who are intelligent, not intelligence from every creative person. Therefore, the statement does not logically enforce Assumption II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because Assumption II is not required by the statement. Option c is wrong because including Assumption II overstates what the original statement implies. Option d is wrong because it ignores the clear relation between intelligence and creativity that must be assumed. Option e incorrectly claims a contradiction, whereas Assumption II is simply not implied, not opposed, by the statement. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a one way condition (intelligent implies creative) with a two way equivalence (intelligent if and only if creative). Automatically adding the converse of a given conditional as if it were guaranteed. Ignoring the specific direction of the statement and generalising it to all people with either trait. Final Answer: Only assumption I follows: creativity and intelligence are related.

Question 10

Statement: “The mind is the source of all human actions, yet the body is given more importance.” Consider this statement and decide which of the given assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question explores the hidden assumptions behind a philosophical sounding statement about mind and body. The statement says that the mind is the source of all human actions, yet the body is given more importance. You are asked which assumptions, if any, are taken for granted. This type of question checks your ability to separate explicit claims from implicit beliefs that make the statement meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The mind is the source of all human actions, yet the body is given more importance. Assumption I: The mind is not given proper importance. Assumption II: The body is getting undeserved importance. Assumption III: Every action starts from the brain. We must decide which assumptions are implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: The phrase yet the body is given more importance clearly expresses a contrast between the true source of actions (mind) and the importance people actually give. The speaker is suggesting that the mind deserves more recognition than it gets. That viewpoint is very close to Assumption I. On the other hand, Assumption III is essentially a restatement of the first part of the statement in different words, so it is not an assumption but an explicit part. Assumption II goes slightly further by judging the importance given to the body as undeserved, which is stronger than what is strictly needed to express the contrast. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key parts of the statement.Step 2: The first part claims that the mind is the source of all human actions. This is a direct assertion. It is equivalent to saying every action starts from the mind or brain, which matches Assumption III.Step 3: However, because this idea is explicitly stated, it does not qualify as an assumption; assumptions are unstated beliefs that must hold for the statement to make sense.Step 4: The second part says yet the body is given more importance. By using yet, the speaker indicates that this current emphasis on the body is contrary to what would be expected from the mind's central role.Step 5: This implies that the mind is undervalued relative to its importance, which aligns with Assumption I: the mind is not given proper importance.Step 6: Assumption II, the body is getting undeserved importance, is a stronger evaluative claim. The statement itself merely says the body is given more importance, not explicitly that it is undeserved or wrong, though that may be hinted.Step 7: To understand the contrast, it is enough to assume that the mind is undervalued. We do not strictly need to assume a full moral judgment that the body's importance is undeserved in every sense.Step 8: Therefore, Assumption I is clearly implicit, Assumption III is explicitly stated rather than assumed, and Assumption II goes beyond what is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Suppose the statement is made in a discussion. The speaker may be suggesting that people focus too much on physical appearance and not enough on mental development. This viewpoint obviously implies that the mind is not getting the importance it deserves, which is Assumption I. However, the same speaker might still accept that in some contexts, the body must be cared for, without calling all attention to the body undeserved. The meaning of the statement stands as long as the mind is undervalued, not necessarily that the body receives entirely undeserved attention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because it highlights Assumption II, which is stronger than needed and not clearly required. Option c is wrong because Assumption III is not an assumption but simply the content of the first part of the statement. Option d is wrong for the same reason: it treats an explicit claim as an assumption. Option e is wrong because, although Assumption I is implicit, Assumption II is not strictly necessary. Common Pitfalls: Treating explicit parts of a statement as assumptions instead of as the main claims. Reading too much moral judgement into the phrase given more importance, and thus assuming undeserved importance. Failing to recognise that the contrast expressed by yet mainly underlines the neglect of the mind, not necessarily the complete rejection of the body's importance. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit: the mind is not given proper importance.

Question 11

Statement: “High pressure boilers are hazardous pieces of equipment, which are strictly regulated with special laws.” Consider this statement to be true and decide which of the given conclusions follows beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with regulatory policy and logical inference. You are told that high pressure boilers are hazardous and are strictly regulated with special laws. From this, you must decide whether certain conclusions about their market availability and rarity can be drawn. The key is to recognise the limits of what strict regulation implies and to avoid reading in extra information that is not actually guaranteed by the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: High pressure boilers are hazardous pieces of equipment, which are strictly regulated with special laws. Conclusion I: If not regulated, high pressure boilers will be easily available in the market. Conclusion II: High pressure boilers are rare. Task: Determine which conclusion, if any, follows beyond a reasonable doubt. Concept / Approach: Strict regulation implies that there are legal controls on manufacture, sale, or use, but it does not automatically tell us what would happen in the absence of regulation, nor does it guarantee rarity. Many regulated items, such as medicines, cars, or industrial equipment, are widely used despite regulation. We must distinguish between what could be true in some situations and what must be true as a logical consequence of the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The statement tells us two things: high pressure boilers are hazardous and they are strictly regulated by special laws.Step 2: Consider Conclusion I: If not regulated, high pressure boilers will be easily available in the market. The given statement never discusses what would happen if regulation were removed.Step 3: It is possible that even without regulation, high pressure boilers would still be expensive, require special expertise, or be produced only by a few companies. So easy availability is not guaranteed.Step 4: Strict regulation does not logically imply that in its absence, availability becomes easy; it only implies that the authorities see a need for control.Step 5: Now consider Conclusion II: High pressure boilers are rare. While strict regulation might reduce their numbers, many hazardous items (for example, industrial equipment) can be common in specialised settings and yet strictly regulated.Step 6: The statement does not mention how many such boilers exist or how frequently they are used. They could be common in power plants and factories.Step 7: Therefore, we cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that high pressure boilers are rare based only on the statement given.Step 8: Since neither conclusion is forced by the statement, the appropriate answer is that neither follows. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine an industrialised country where high pressure boilers are used in almost every large factory and power station. Because they are hazardous, they are indeed strictly regulated by special laws. This scenario satisfies the statement but contradicts Conclusion II, since the boilers are not rare. Also imagine that even if laws were relaxed, these boilers would still require specialised installation, which prevents easy availability in ordinary markets. This shows that Conclusion I is not guaranteed either. Thus, both conclusions can be false while the statement remains true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because Conclusion I does not necessarily follow; strict regulation does not prove that lack of regulation produces easy availability. Option b is wrong because nothing in the statement quantifies how common or rare high pressure boilers are. Option c is wrong because if each individual conclusion fails, they cannot both follow. Option e incorrectly suggests a contradiction where none exists; rarity is not mentioned in the original statement at all. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that strict regulation always implies rarity, even though many common items are strictly regulated. Inferring strong what if scenarios (such as free market flooding) from regulation, without direct evidence. Not separating what seems plausible in real life from what is logically forced by the exact words of the statement. Final Answer: Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows from the given statement.

Question 12

Statement: “The company A used to outsource its recruitment process for some years, but this year the company has decided to conduct the recruitment process within the organisation.” Read the following statements I and II and decide which of them st…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns an organisational decision and how supporting statements affect its strength. Company A has stopped outsourcing its recruitment process and has decided to handle recruitment internally. Two additional statements are given, and you must decide whether they strengthen, weaken, or are neutral with respect to this decision. Such questions test your ability to see how extra facts affect the plausibility or wisdom of a decision. Given Data / Assumptions: Main statement: The company A used to outsource its recruitment process for some years, but this year it has decided to conduct the recruitment process within the organisation. Statement I: The employees who have been working in the organisation are aware that hard work is required to work in the company. Statement II: The company has decided to appoint three new persons in its senior level authority for the smooth recruitment process. Task: Decide whether I and II strengthen, weaken, or are neutral with respect to the decision to recruit internally. Concept / Approach: A statement strengthens the decision if it gives reasons why the decision is likely to work better or be more successful. It weakens the decision if it suggests the decision will create problems or is not well supported. Internal recruitment processes benefit when insiders understand company expectations and when there is enough experienced staff to manage the process. Therefore, statements that show internal staff know what is required or that extra resources are added to manage recruitment will generally strengthen the move away from outsourcing. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider Statement I. It tells us that existing employees know that hard work is required to work in the company.Step 2: If employees who conduct interviews or help with recruitment understand the high standard of effort needed, they can choose candidates who match the company culture and demands.Step 3: This makes an internal recruitment process more likely to select suitable candidates, which supports the decision to bring recruitment in house.Step 4: Now consider Statement II. The company will appoint three new persons at senior level authority for smooth recruitment.Step 5: This implies that the organisation is adding experienced resources to manage its internal recruitment. This reduces the risk that the process will become overloaded or unstructured.Step 6: By investing in senior staff to oversee recruitment, the company demonstrates commitment to making the internal process effective, which also strengthens the decision.Step 7: Neither statement raises drawbacks or problems with internal recruitment; rather, both provide positive support that employees understand expectations and that management capacity is being increased. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a scenario where the decision was made to handle recruitment internally but there were no experienced staff and no additional resources. In that case, one might doubt whether the decision is practical. By contrast, Statement I assures us that insiders know what it takes to succeed in the company, improving candidate matching. Statement II assures us that extra senior staff will be assigned to handle recruitment smoothly, addressing concerns about capacity and organisation. Together, they make the internal recruitment decision look better planned and more likely to succeed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because Statement II does not weaken the decision; rather, it supports the decision by adding management resources. Option c is wrong because Statement I is clearly not neutral; it has a positive effect on the quality of internal recruitment. Option d is wrong because both statements are relevant and supportive, not neutral. Option e is wrong because neither statement weakens the decision; both point in a supportive direction. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that any change in management structure (such as appointing new senior persons) signals a problem, when it can actually be part of a strengthening plan. Overlooking the importance of cultural fit and knowledge of company expectations in recruitment decisions. Classifying relevant supportive information as neutral just because it does not directly mention outsourcing. Final Answer: Both statements I and II strengthen the company's decision to conduct recruitment within the organisation.

Question 13

Statement: “Teachers must attend workshops.” Consider this directive and decide which of the given assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns a directive about professional development for teachers. The statement says that teachers must attend workshops. You must identify which assumptions are taken for granted when such a rule is made. Recognising implicit assumptions helps you understand the motivation behind policies and instructions. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Teachers must attend workshops. Assumption 1: Workshops update teachers. Assumption 2: Workshops kill time. Task: Decide which assumption or assumptions are implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: When an authority requires teachers to attend workshops, the implied belief is that workshops are beneficial in some way, usually by updating their knowledge or skills. Without such a benefit, making attendance compulsory would not have a rational basis. On the other hand, the idea that workshops kill time is a negative evaluation; if it were truly believed by those making the rule, they would be less likely to mandate attendance. So we expect only the positive assumption to be implicit. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The directive Teachers must attend workshops suggests that participation is important for teachers.Step 2: A natural reason for this importance is that workshops help teachers stay updated with new methods, syllabus changes, or educational tools.Step 3: This is exactly what Assumption 1 states: Workshops update teachers. For the directive to make sense, the decision makers must believe this.Step 4: Therefore, Assumption 1 is implicit in the statement.Step 5: Assumption 2 asserts that workshops kill time, which is a strongly negative judgement.Step 6: If the decision makers truly believed that workshops kill time and offer no real benefit, it would be irrational to insist that teachers must attend.Step 7: Thus, Assumption 2 is not only unnecessary for the statement, it actually conflicts with the reasoning behind making workshops compulsory.Step 8: Hence, only Assumption 1 is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Consider a school administration designing a policy. If they think workshops give teachers updated knowledge and techniques, they have an incentive to make attendance compulsory, so all teachers benefit. Now consider if they believed workshops only kill time without improving teaching. In that case, the logical move would be to reduce or remove workshops, not to mandate them. This confirms that the positive assumption about usefulness, not the negative one, underlies the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because including Assumption 2 misrepresents the motivation behind the directive. Option b is wrong because at least one clear assumption (Assumption 1) is necessary. Option c is wrong because it selects the negative assumption, which contradicts the intent of the rule. Option e brings in truth value issues beyond the question of what is assumed. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that because some teachers may feel workshops kill time, this sentiment is also held by the policy makers who issued the directive. Failing to distinguish between the perspective of those who must attend and those who set the rule. Thinking that every statement about an activity includes both positive and negative assumptions, instead of identifying which one is logically required. Final Answer: Only assumption 1 is implicit: the belief that workshops update and benefit teachers underlies the directive that teachers must attend them.

Question 14

Statement: “Honesty is the best policy.” Consider this proverb like statement and decide which of the given assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is based on a famous proverb: Honesty is the best policy. You are asked to identify which assumptions lie behind this broad moral claim. The suggested assumptions refer to who makes policies and what those policies must contain. Your task is to see whether such details are actually required for the proverb to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: Honesty is the best policy. Assumption 1: Honest people are policy makers. Assumption 2: Each policy must contain honesty. Goal: Decide which of these assumptions is implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: The proverb Honesty is the best policy is a general guideline for individual behaviour. It suggests that in life, acting honestly leads to the best long term results. It does not literally talk about written policies, policy makers, or any formal documents. Therefore, assumptions about who creates policies or what every policy must contain are likely not required. Instead, the proverb stands as a self contained moral recommendation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the natural meaning of the statement. It is advising people that being honest is a good way to live, often better than cheating or lying.Step 2: The term policy here is metaphorical, referring to a way or strategy of behaving, not to formal written policies created by committees or governments.Step 3: Assumption 1 says that honest people are policy makers. The proverb does not mention who makes policies at all; it simply says that honesty, as a principle, is superior.Step 4: Therefore, the statement does not require the assumption that honest people design official policies.Step 5: Assumption 2 claims that each policy must contain honesty. Again, the proverb does not state or imply a requirement about all formal policies.Step 6: One could accept the proverb as advice for personal behaviour even if many formal policies in organisations do not explicitly mention honesty.Step 7: Hence, the truth or falsity of Assumption 2 is not essential for understanding or accepting the statement.Step 8: Since neither assumption is necessary, we conclude that neither 1 nor 2 is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a person telling a child, Always remember that honesty is the best policy. The focus is entirely on the child’s personal choices, not on any organisation’s written rules. Whether honest people create official policies or whether every policy document includes honesty has no effect on the meaning or validity of the advice. This confirms that the statement does not rest on Assumption 1 or Assumption 2. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because it adds two specific claims about policy making that are irrelevant to the proverb. Option c and option d are wrong because they treat one of the assumptions as necessary when it clearly is not. Option e mentions contradiction without addressing the real issue of logical dependence. Common Pitfalls: Taking the word policy too literally and thinking about organisational policies instead of personal conduct. Trying to tie broad moral sayings to specific institutional structures that they were never meant to describe. Looking for hidden complexity where the statement is simply offering straightforward life advice. Final Answer: Neither assumption 1 nor assumption 2 is implicit in the proverb Honesty is the best policy.

Question 15

Consider the question: “How was the sale of the company ABC?” and the following statements. Statement 1: The company ABC sold 75,000 units of soaps, each at Rs 70. Statement 2: ABC has no other products in the production line. Decide which statement…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a data sufficiency question about the sales of a company. The question How was the sale of the company ABC? is typically interpreted in such problems as asking about total sales revenue for a period, not about vague ideas like good or bad. You are given two statements and must decide which of them provides enough information to determine the sales figure, without necessarily computing it in the exam. Given Data / Assumptions: Question: How was the sale of the company ABC? (interpreted as What was the total sales value?) Statement 1: The company ABC sold 75,000 units of soaps, each at Rs 70. Statement 2: ABC has no other products in the production line. Task: Determine which statement(s) are sufficient to answer the question. Concept / Approach: To compute sales revenue, you need the quantity sold and the unit price. Statement 1 directly gives both for the company’s only mentioned product, soap. If this is the only product sold during the relevant period, revenue is simply quantity times price. Statement 2 merely tells you that there are no other products in production, but says nothing about quantities sold or prices. Data sufficiency questions focus on whether you could in principle compute, not on actually doing the multiplication. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From Statement 1, we know that 75,000 units were sold and that each unit was sold for Rs 70.Step 2: Total sales revenue from soaps is therefore 75,000 * 70. Even if we do not explicitly multiply, it is clear that the total sales value can be uniquely determined from this information.Step 3: Thus, Statement 1 alone is sufficient to answer the question in the sense required by data sufficiency.Step 4: Statement 2 says that ABC has no other products in the production line.Step 5: Knowing only that there are no other products does not tell us how many units of soap were sold or at what price. Thus we cannot determine sales revenue from Statement 2 alone.Step 6: Combining Statement 2 with Statement 1 does not add new numerical information beyond what Statement 1 already provides, so Statement 1 remains sufficient by itself.Step 7: Therefore, the correct conclusion is that Statement 1 alone is sufficient, while Statement 2 alone is not. Verification / Alternative check: Ask yourself: Could the company have made any sales from other products in the period if Statement 1 were true but Statement 2 were false? Yes, hypothetically it could. However, the question as set usually treats Statement 1 as describing total sales because no other products or sales figures are mentioned. Even if there were other minor products, the test format assumes that the only relevant sales detail is the soap sales given. Statement 2 simply confirms that no other revenue stream exists, but this confirmation is not required to compute the sales from soaps. Hence Statement 1 remains sufficient. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a is wrong because Statement 2 is not needed to determine the sales value when Statement 1 already provides quantity and price. Option b is wrong because Statement 2 alone gives no numerical sales data. Option d is wrong because it ignores the completeness of Statement 1. Option e is wrong because Statement 2 alone is clearly insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Overcomplicating the question How was the sale? and treating it as a vague qualitative question rather than about sales figures. Thinking that you must know there are no other products before calculating sales, even when complete numerical data for the mentioned product is given. Confusing what is necessary in real life accounting with what is necessary in the simplified data sufficiency context. Final Answer: Statement 1 alone is sufficient, while statement 2 alone is not sufficient to answer the question about the sales of company ABC.

Question 16

Statement: “All the species of plants and animals are part of biodiversity and ecosystems and play a major role in the overall health of the environment.” Consider this statement and decide which of the following assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with environmental reasoning. The main statement highlights that all species of plants and animals are part of biodiversity and ecosystems and that they play a major role in the overall health of the environment. You are given two longer assumptions, one about creating backyard habitats and another about sustainability and energy flow, and you must decide whether either is logically required by the original statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Main statement: All the species of plants and animals are part of biodiversity and ecosystems and play a major role in the overall health of the environment. Assumption I: Preserve or create a backyard habitat. Save as many native plants as you can when building or landscaping. Assumption II: One of the major goals of sustainability is to preserve biodiversity, and each time a species becomes endangered or lost to extinction, one more part of the planetary food web energy flow is lost. Task: Decide which assumptions are implicit in the main statement. Concept / Approach: The main statement is descriptive: it tells us that species contribute to biodiversity and environmental health. It does not explicitly prescribe actions or define goals of sustainability. Assumptions are unstated ideas that must hold for the statement to be meaningful or reasonable. Practical suggestions such as creating backyard habitats or discussions about specific sustainability goals usually go beyond simple descriptive statements, so we should be cautious in treating them as implicit. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on what the statement actually says. It emphasises that all species are part of biodiversity and that they play a major role in environmental health.Step 2: It does not instruct individuals on how to act, nor does it specify what people should do with this information.Step 3: Assumption I is an action oriented recommendation: create a backyard habitat and save native plants when landscaping.Step 4: The main statement can be fully understood and accepted without assuming that individuals must create backyard habitats. Such actions might be inspired by the statement but are not logically required for its truth.Step 5: Assumption II discusses sustainability goals and the planetary food web, and links loss of species to loss of energy flow.Step 6: While this may be consistent with the spirit of environmental concern, the main statement does not explicitly or implicitly talk about sustainability as a goal or detail the food web energy flow.Step 7: The statement only needs the assumption that species are functionally important for environmental health, which is already expressed directly in the text. It does not require a full sustainability doctrine as described in Assumption II.Step 8: Therefore, neither Assumption I nor Assumption II is logically necessary for the original statement to hold. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine an ecologist giving a lecture: All species are part of biodiversity and ecosystems, and they play a major role in the overall health of the environment. Even if the ecologist does not recommend backyard habitats or mention planetary energy flow explicitly, the statement stands as a valid description. People listening may or may not later decide to preserve native plants or focus on sustainability goals. The truth of the descriptive claim does not depend on those later actions or frameworks, confirming that neither assumption is implicit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because both assumptions introduce extra content not required by the descriptive statement. Option c and option d are wrong because each treats one of the long, detailed ideas as necessary when they are not. Option e unnecessarily mixes questions of truth and assumption; the main issue is logical dependence, not truth value. Common Pitfalls: Confusing what might be good environmental practice (like preserving native plants) with what must be assumed for a general statement about biodiversity. Reading broader sustainability policy discussions into a simple statement about ecological roles. Assuming that every environment related statement automatically carries all possible environmentalist recommendations as assumptions. Final Answer: Neither assumption I nor assumption II is implicit in the given statement about species, biodiversity, and environmental health.

Question 17

Statement: “The headmistress called for a meeting of all staff members to discuss discipline issues.” Consider this statement and decide which of the following assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This reasoning question deals with assumptions behind an administrative action. The headmistress has called a meeting of all staff members to discuss discipline issues. You must decide whether it is assumed that discipline issues existed earlier and whether the headmistress wants to address all of them together. Understanding such assumptions is important for interpreting organisational decisions. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: The headmistress called for a meeting of all staff members to discuss discipline issues. Assumption I: There were some discipline issues that were raised earlier. Assumption II: The headmistress wants to address all of the discipline issues together. Task: Decide which assumptions are implicit in the statement. Concept / Approach: A meeting to discuss discipline issues makes sense only if such issues exist or have been observed. That naturally supports Assumption I. However, the statement does not say that every single issue will be addressed or that they all must be taken up together; it simply says that the topic of the meeting is discipline issues. It is possible to discuss only the most urgent or important ones. Assumptions must be necessary, not merely possible elaborations. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The headmistress calls a meeting with all staff members and the agenda is discipline issues.Step 2: For this to be meaningful, there must be at least some discipline problems in the school that need attention. This is exactly what Assumption I states.Step 3: Without any discipline issues, there would be no reason to call such a meeting, so Assumption I is implicit.Step 4: Now examine Assumption II: the headmistress wants to address all of them together.Step 5: The statement does not mention the word all or suggest that every single issue will be covered in one meeting.Step 6: It is possible that the headmistress intends to address only a subset of the most pressing discipline issues or to start a series of discussions.Step 7: Thus, the idea of addressing all of them together is not necessary for the statement and is therefore not implicit.Step 8: Hence, only Assumption I is implicit. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the headmistress has received several complaints about student behaviour. She decides to call a meeting to discuss discipline issues. Clearly, there are issues to discuss; this supports Assumption I. She may choose to focus only on punctuality and classroom behaviour in the first meeting and leave issues like uniform or homework for later sessions. The statement about calling a meeting would still be true, even though not all issues are covered together. Thus the statement does not require Assumption II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b is wrong because Assumption II is not necessary for the meeting to be called. Option c is wrong because it incorrectly includes Assumption II as implicit. Option d is wrong because clearly at least one assumption (that discipline issues exist) must hold. Option e shifts focus to truth values instead of logical necessity and still misidentifies which assumption is needed. Common Pitfalls: Over reading the phrase discuss discipline issues to mean discuss each and every existing issue. Ignoring the minimal requirement that there must be some genuine issues to justify a full staff meeting. Confusing what might be ideal (addressing everything at once) with what is logically assumed by the basic statement. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit: there were some discipline issues that had arisen earlier and needed discussion.

Question 18

Statement: “You will not get sweets at any cost. I will not let you eat things that are not good for your teeth,” a mother tells her child. Consider this statement and decide which of the following assumptions is or are implicit.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem is about assumptions behind a protective statement from a parent. A mother tells her child that the child will not get sweets because she will not allow eating things that are not good for the child's teeth. You must determine whether caring for the child, believing that sweets are bad, and having authority over what the child eats are all assumed. Such questions test your ability to read implied attitudes and relationships from everyday language. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement: “You will not get sweets at any cost. I will not let you eat things that are not good for your teeth,” a mother tells her child. Assumption (i): The mother cares for her child. Assumption (ii): Sweets are not good for her child. Assumption (iii): The mother has the authority to decide what her child is to eat. Task: Decide which assumptions are implicit in the mother's statement. Concept / Approach: The mother is clearly restricting sweets because of concern about the child's teeth. This implies both care and a belief that sweets are harmful. Moreover, she is using phrases like I will not let you eat, which show she believes she can control the child's food choices. All three assumptions naturally underpin her statement. If any were removed, the statement would lose its meaning or motivation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The mother links sweets to things that are not good for your teeth and forbids them.Step 2: This indicates that she is concerned about the health of the child's teeth, which is a form of caring for the child as a whole.Step 3: That concern is captured in Assumption (i): The mother cares for her child. Without care, she would have little reason to restrict sweets for health reasons.Step 4: The mother specifically includes sweets in the category of things that are not good for your teeth. She refuses sweets for that reason.Step 5: Thus Assumption (ii) Sweets are not good for her child is directly implicit. If she did not believe sweets were harmful, this justification would make no sense.Step 6: The wording I will not let you eat expresses authority and control over what the child consumes.Step 7: This reflects Assumption (iii): The mother has the authority to decide what her child is to eat. Without this authority, her statement would be an idle threat, not an effective decision.Step 8: Therefore, all three assumptions (i), (ii) and (iii) are implicit in the mother's statement. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a universe where the mother did not care about the child. Then the explanation that sweets are bad for teeth would be inconsistent with her behaviour, and the restriction would sound unlikely. If she believed sweets were harmless, she would not logically connect them to damage to teeth. Finally, if she had no authority over the child's diet, she could not credibly say I will not let you eat. The statement is natural only when all three assumptions hold together: caring, belief in harm from sweets, and authority over the child's food choices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a includes only (i) and (ii), but leaves out (iii), which is clearly implied by the phrase I will not let you eat. Option b includes (ii) and (iii) but omits (i), ignoring the obvious caring motivation. Option c includes (i) and (iii) but omits (ii), even though the harm from sweets is explicitly used as a reason. Option e is far too narrow and misses the caring relationship and authority aspect. Common Pitfalls: Focusing only on the health aspect and forgetting the parental authority dimension. Assuming that care is too emotional to count as a logical assumption, even though it is clearly implied here. Reading the statement as a simple command without noticing the underlying reasons and relationships. Final Answer: All assumptions (i), (ii) and (iii) are implicit in the mother's statement to her child.

Question 19

Consider the following editorial-style statement and the assumptions that follow. Statement: "Clearly, the judiciary cannot provide all answers. But it seems the public, weary of an inactive Executive, is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resor…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of implicit assumptions in critical reasoning. You are given a statement about the public turning to the Supreme Court because the Executive is inactive. You must decide which background beliefs the author must be taking for granted in order for the statement to make sense. These hidden beliefs are called implicit assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: • Statement: The judiciary cannot answer everything, but the public, tired of an inactive Executive, is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resort. • Assumption (i): The Supreme Court is above the Executive. • Assumption (ii): The Supreme Court is more active than the Executive. • Assumption (iii): The Executive does not have sufficient powers. • We must identify which assumptions are necessarily presupposed by the statement for it to be meaningful and persuasive. Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit when the statement would lose its force or become unreasonable if that assumption were not true. It need not be explicitly stated, but it must be taken for granted. We check each of the three given assumptions and ask: if this were false, would the original statement still make clear sense? Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The core idea in the statement is that the Executive is inactive, and because of this, the public is turning to the Supreme Court as a last resort. Step 2: For people to turn to the Supreme Court due to Executive inaction, they must believe that the Supreme Court is at least more responsive or more active than the Executive. Otherwise, going there as a last resort would not be logical. This supports assumption (ii). Step 3: The statement does not say that the Supreme Court is above the Executive in the constitutional hierarchy; it only indicates that people seek relief there. Even bodies not constitutionally "above" the Executive can be approached for remedies. So assumption (i) is not required. Step 4: The statement blames the Executive for being inactive, not for lacking powers. An Executive can be powerful yet unwilling to act. Therefore, assumption (iii) about insufficient powers is not necessary; the problem is described as inaction, not powerlessness. Step 5: Thus, only assumption (ii) must be implicit for the argument in the article to work. Verification / Alternative check: If assumption (ii) were false and the Supreme Court were equally inactive or more inactive than the Executive, the public would have no reason to turn to it as a last resort. The entire logic of seeking relief there would collapse. On the other hand, even if assumption (i) or (iii) are false, people could still turn to the Court simply because they think it actually acts, which confirms that only (ii) is truly implicit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A and Option B wrongly include assumptions (i) or (iii), which are not necessary to explain the public's behaviour. Option C combines (i) and (iii), both of which are unnecessary. Only assumption (ii) must be true for the statement to make sense, so any option that adds extra assumptions is incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse what is factually true in the real world with what is logically required by the argument. Another common mistake is to treat every plausible background idea as an assumption, instead of checking whether the statement truly depends on it. Always test each proposed assumption by temporarily negating it and seeing whether the original statement still holds together logically. Final Answer: The only assumption that is definitely implicit in the statement is that the Supreme Court is more active than the Executive, so the correct option is that only assumption (ii) is implicit.

Question 20

Choose the word that is least like the other words in the following group:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic "odd one out" problem in logical reasoning and general awareness. You are given four terms and must identify which item does not belong to the same category as the others. Such questions test your ability to recognise patterns, group similar ideas, and spot conceptual differences between options. Given Data / Assumptions: • Tsangpo: Name of a major river (Yarlung Tsangpo) flowing mainly through Tibet and associated regions. • Hazaribagh: Name of a region/town in India, also known for the Hazaribagh Wildlife Sanctuary and a national park area. • Kanha: Refers to Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, a famous tiger reserve and wildlife sanctuary. • Bandipur: Refers to Bandipur National Park in Karnataka, another well known wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve. • We assume a basic awareness of Indian national parks and geography, as is common in competitive exams. Concept / Approach: The approach is to look for a common category shared by most of the options. If three of the four items fall neatly into a single well known category, then the remaining one is the odd one out. Here, we look at what each name most commonly signifies: river, town, national park or wildlife sanctuary. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the primary association of Tsangpo. Tsangpo primarily refers to the Yarlung Tsangpo River, a major river system in Tibet that later becomes the Brahmaputra downstream. Step 2: Identify Hazaribagh. Hazaribagh is a town and district in Jharkhand, India. It is also associated with a wildlife sanctuary and national park area known for forest and wildlife. Step 3: Identify Kanha. Kanha is almost always used to refer to Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, one of India's most famous tiger reserves and wildlife parks. Step 4: Identify Bandipur. Bandipur refers to Bandipur National Park in Karnataka, again a popular wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve. Step 5: Compare the categories. Hazaribagh, Kanha and Bandipur are all strongly associated with wildlife sanctuaries or national parks in India. Tsangpo, on the other hand, is a river and not primarily known as a wildlife park. Verification / Alternative check: If you think loosely about "places with forests", you might try to argue that Tsangpo valley is also scenic and natural, but competitive-exam questions rely on the most standard textbook associations: Hazaribagh, Kanha and Bandipur appear in lists of national parks and tiger reserves, while Tsangpo appears in lists of important rivers. This confirms that Tsangpo belongs to a different category. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Hazaribagh, Kanha and Bandipur all represent wildlife areas or national parks, which form a natural group. None of them is a river name in common usage. Therefore they are similar to each other but different from Tsangpo. Picking any of them as the odd one out would ignore this strong shared category. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to focus only on whether a place is inside or outside India, but that is not the intended pattern here. Another error is not recognising Hazaribagh as associated with a wildlife sanctuary. Always recall standard geography and environment facts: rivers versus national parks versus cities. Final Answer: The word least like the others in the group is Tsangpo, because it is a river, whereas the others are primarily known as wildlife sanctuaries or national parks.

Statement and Assumption Questions