Question 1

Statement–Assumption — “Thick milk does not mean high-quality milk.” — Issued in public interest by a reputed milk company Assumptions: I) There is a prevalent misconception that thicker milk is better. II) Some companies sell adulterated thick milk…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A public advisory aims to correct a mistaken heuristic (thickness equals quality). We assess which beliefs are necessary for issuing such guidance. Given Data / Assumptions: Consumers may equate viscosity with purity or richness. Advisories can modify consumer choice criteria. Concept / Approach: I must be true; without a misconception there is no reason to issue the message. II, alleging competitors’ adulteration, is not necessary; the advisory can stand purely as consumer education without accusing others. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Link message to target misconception (I).2) Exclude II as optional and unrequired. Verification / Alternative check: Milk thickness can be influenced by fat/SNF content or additives; quality requires standardized testing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only II/Both/Neither” either add needless accusation or miss the educational premise. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all thick milk is adulterated; the message only rejects “thickness = quality.” Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit.

Question 2

Statement–Assumption — “Citizens and nations reveal their character by the way they treat their elderly and the disabled.” Assumptions: I) The elderly and disabled are the most respectable members of society. II) The elderly and disabled need societ…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The maxim ties moral character to treatment of vulnerable groups. We determine the minimal belief that makes this evaluative criterion meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: Elderly and disabled persons often face access, income, or care barriers. Societal response toward the vulnerable reflects collective values. Concept / Approach: The statement presupposes II: these groups rely on society’s consideration; thus treatment is a moral test. It does not claim they are “most respectable” (I), which is a value ranking unrelated to the argument. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify vulnerability → need for support (II).2) Reject hierarchical respect claim (I) as unnecessary. Verification / Alternative check: Global norms emphasise inclusion and accessibility for vulnerable citizens. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I/Both/Neither” mischaracterise the moral test’s basis. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “needing care” with “ranking in respect.” Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit.

Question 3

Statement–Assumption — “Unemployment has increased in spite of the Indian economy growing well.” Assumptions: I) Economic growth is expected to create more job opportunities. II) Factors other than growth influence employment outcomes. Choose the im…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement contrasts rising unemployment with healthy GDP growth, implicitly critiquing “jobless growth.” For this contrast to carry meaning, two background beliefs must hold. Given Data / Assumptions: Growth generally raises labour demand via investment and consumption (expectation). Employment also depends on technology, sectoral mix, labour regulations, and participation rates (other factors). Concept / Approach: Assumption I provides the “despite” tension: growth should generate jobs. Assumption II explains why the expectation may fail: other determinants can offset or delay job creation, producing divergence between GDP and employment. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recognise normative baseline (I): growth → jobs.2) Recognise multidimensional labour dynamics (II).3) Hence both assumptions are necessary to make the contrast informative. Verification / Alternative check: Episodes of productivity-led, capital-intensive growth often raise GDP without commensurate hiring. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one undermines either the contrast or its explanation; “Neither” empties the statement of significance. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a mechanical growth→jobs link without considering sectoral composition. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit.

Question 4

Statement: It is not unknown in India that inquiry reports—usually compiled with considerable care—are shelved and forgotten as soon as the initial public outrage dies down. Assumptions: I. The credibility of inquiry reports has considerably gone do…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This verbal reasoning problem tests the ability to identify implicit assumptions—unstated premises that must be true for the given statement to make sense. The statement claims that inquiry reports in India, even when carefully compiled, are often shelved once initial outrage subsides. We must evaluate which assumptions necessarily underlie this claim, not which are merely plausible or agreeable. Given Data / Assumptions: Inquiry reports are prepared with care. After public outrage wanes, such reports are shelved and forgotten. We seek assumptions that must hold for this description to be coherent. Concept / Approach: To be implicit, an assumption must be indispensable to the sense of the statement. A claim about reports being shelved implies non-implementation or inadequate follow-through. However, it does not automatically entail broader claims about public credibility perceptions unless the original statement references or relies on public trust as part of its logic. Step-by-Step Solution: Test Assumption I: “Credibility has gone down.” The statement criticizes post-outrage follow-through but does not hinge on whether the public believes the reports. Even if credibility were high, the critique (that authorities shelve reports) still stands. Thus I is not necessary.Test Assumption II: “Inquiry reports are never implemented up to victims’ expectations.” Saying reports are “shelved and forgotten” effectively means they are not acted upon in any meaningful sense, certainly not to the level expected by victims of a crisis. The statement’s force depends on this non-implementation idea. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a world where reports are routinely implemented satisfactorily after outrage fades. Then the statement (“shelved and forgotten”) would be false. Hence the non-implementation premise is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including I assume a fall in credibility, which is not required by the wording. “Either” or “both” wrongly include I; “neither” ignores the clear non-implementation premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “plausible consequence” (loss of credibility) with “necessary assumption” (lack of follow-through). Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 5

Statement: India is suffering because citizens have given and taken votes based on caste or religion rather than on principles. Assumptions: I. The days of value-based voting are numbered in India. II. Voting based on principles can nullify or mitig…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement blames current electoral behavior (caste/religion voting) for India’s suffering. We must identify the hidden premise(s) without which this evaluative claim would lack force. Given Data / Assumptions: Citizens have often voted based on caste/religion. “Principles” are contrasted as the better basis. We test which assumption is essential. Concept / Approach: A necessary assumption supports the causal/evaluative leap. If the speaker proposes principles-based voting as the corrective, the logic presumes such voting alleviates the named harms. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “The days of value-based voting are numbered.” This predicts decline in value-based voting; the statement criticizes present practice, but does not require a trend prediction. Not necessary.Assumption II: “Principles-based voting can counter harms of identity voting.” This is required; otherwise recommending “principles” as an antidote would be pointless. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false, the statement’s contrast would lose explanatory power. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Including I adds an unnecessary forecast; “neither” ignores the corrective premise; “either/both” wrongly include I. Common Pitfalls: Reading trend claims into a present-tense critique. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 6

Statement: “Our population is now 100 crore. Let’s have small families for a stronger India.” — a public (nasal) message sent by MTNL. Assumptions: I. Public messages sent through mass communication media are effective tools to achieve behavioral ch…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item asks which premises must be true for a public message advocating small families to make sense. We separate necessary assumptions from merely supportive facts. Given Data / Assumptions: MTNL broadcasts a message encouraging small families. Target: national strength via population control. Concept / Approach: For such a message to be rational: (a) planners must believe mass communication can influence behavior, and (b) population growth is a sufficiently serious concern to warrant messaging. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Necessary. If mass messages were ineffective by nature, broadcasting would be irrational.Assumption II: Necessary. The call for small families presupposes that rapid population growth is problematic for “stronger India.” Verification / Alternative check: If either I or II were false (messages ineffective, or population growth not worrisome), the broadcast’s rationale collapses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-assumption choice omits a required premise; “neither” contradicts the logic; “either” is insufficient because both premises are needed. Common Pitfalls: Confusing helpful assumptions with indispensable ones—here both are indispensable. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 7

Statement: People of Indian origin (PIO) maintain their cultural traditions and values even though they have settled comfortably in their adopted countries. Assumptions: I. Indian culture is flexible enough to be adjusted with any other culture. II.…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement observes that PIOs preserve their culture abroad. We must detect whether it assumes cultural flexibility or superiority. Remember: an assumption must be essential to the statement’s sense, not a plausible explanation. Given Data / Assumptions: PIOs maintain cultural traditions while settled overseas. No claim is made about compatibility or ranking of cultures. Concept / Approach: Maintaining one’s culture overseas can result from community networks, identity salience, institutions (temples, associations), or personal choice. The statement does not require that Indian culture be inherently flexible or superior. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I (Flexibility): Not necessary. One can maintain culture even in a non-flexible, distinct form through enclaves and ritual continuity.Assumption II (Superiority): Not necessary. Preservation does not imply a value ranking over other cultures; it simply notes persistence. Verification / Alternative check: Even if Indian culture were neither unusually flexible nor “superior,” the statement could be true due to diaspora dynamics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I or II imports causal/value claims not required by the observation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing reasons people may give (pride, adaptability) with assumptions the sentence needs. Final Answer: if neither I nor II is implicit.

Question 8

Statement: DTC authorities have planned to print advertisements for various products on bus tickets to put the tickets to good use. Assumptions: I. Passengers will read (or at least notice) the advertisements printed on the tickets. II. DTC will be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The plan is to monetize/“put to good use” bus tickets by printing ads. For the plan to be rational, at least two premises must hold: visibility to riders and the existence of advertisers willing to pay. Given Data / Assumptions: Tickets will carry advertisements. Goal: practical use and implied revenue. Concept / Approach: Advertising has two sides: audience attention and paying clients. Without readership, ads are ineffective; without clients, there are no ads to print. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Necessary. If riders do not see the ads, the idea fails the “use” test.Assumption II: Necessary. The plan presumes that advertisers will participate; otherwise the initiative cannot proceed. Verification / Alternative check: Remove either premise and the plan loses its commercial logic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single-assumption choices omit an essential side of the market; “neither” contradicts the rationale; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the two-sided nature of advertising platforms. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 9

Statement: Parents of students are demonstrating at the Legislative Council to protest against fee-hike revisions announced by the capital’s educational institutions. Assumptions: I. The parents are unable (or find it unreasonable) to afford the inc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Why protest at the Legislative Council? Because protesters believe (a) the fee hike harms them materially and (b) the Council can influence or reverse the decision. These are classic implicit premises behind targeted demonstrations. Given Data / Assumptions: Parents assembled at a political/legislative venue. Issue: recent fee hike by educational institutions. Concept / Approach: Demonstrations typically presume both grievance and a forum with remedial power. If either is absent, the action loses point or venue logic. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Necessary. Without economic hardship or perceived unfairness, mass protest lacks motivation.Assumption II: Necessary. Protesting specifically at the Legislative Council implies belief in its capacity to influence/command institutions. Verification / Alternative check: If the Council had no authority or the fees were easily affordable, the protest's location/scale would be irrational. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-assumption choice omits a key driver; “neither” negates the rationale for venue and action; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Assuming protests are purely symbolic—here the venue signals a remedy expectation. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 10

Statement: "All the State Governments and Union Territories should make video-filming of post-mortem examinations compulsory in cases of custodial deaths." — National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Assumptions: I. Doctors sometimes provide false or …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests recognition of implicit assumptions behind a policy recommendation. The NHRC recommends compulsory video-filming of post-mortems for custodial deaths. We must identify what must be true for this recommendation to be meaningful, not merely desirable. Given Data / Assumptions: Context: custodial deaths, where potential conflict of interest or pressure on medical/legal processes may exist. Proposal: compulsory video-filming of post-mortems to increase transparency and accountability. Goal: bolster evidentiary integrity and deter malpractice. Concept / Approach: In verbal reasoning, an implicit assumption is a necessary premise without which the statement loses its force. Here, the utility of video-filming hinges on the existence or risk of inaccurate, biased, or manipulated post-mortem reports. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If doctors never falsified or were never influenced, compulsory filming would add little value. The recommendation presumes a problem of accuracy/credibility that filming can mitigate. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: While lack of justice for families may be a consequence of falsified reports, the NHRC’s recommendation does not require that justice has not been served in general. The policy could be adopted proactively to prevent possible miscarriages. Thus II is not strictly necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If there were no risk of false/compromised autopsies (I false), filming would be redundant. If some families already secure justice (II false), filming could still be warranted; the recommendation stands. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including II as necessary overreach. “Both” and “either” wrongly elevate II; “neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the crux. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a plausible motivation (justice for families) with a logically necessary assumption. Final Answer: if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 11

Statement: Income controlled by women contributes much more to household food security and child nutrition than income controlled by men. Assumptions: I. Women pay more attention to household nutrition. II. Men are more interested in outside affairs…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement claims a comparative impact: money in women’s control benefits food security and child nutrition more than money controlled by men. We must uncover what essential premise underlies this comparative claim. Given Data / Assumptions: Control over income affects expenditure patterns. Outcome metrics: household food security and child nutrition. Concept / Approach: For the comparative effect to hold, it must be that women, on average, allocate income more towards nutrition-focused spending than men do. That does not require any particular statement about men’s “outside affairs.” Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If women do not attend more to household nutrition, women-controlled income would not systematically outperform men-controlled income on these outcomes. Thus I is necessary.Assumption II: This adds a reason (men focus outside) that is neither stated nor required. Even if men focused equally on household matters but had different spending patterns for other reasons, the statement could still be true. Hence II is not necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a world where men care deeply about households but still allocate less to nutrition than women due to preferences, social roles, or constraints. The original statement remains intact without II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” include an unnecessary premise. “Neither” ignores I; “only II” misses the mechanism. Common Pitfalls: Reading stereotyping explanations (like II) into the logic; the test is logical necessity, not sociological speculation. Final Answer: if only assumption I is implicit.

Question 12

Statement: "The state's executive machinery should take all necessary measures to stop hazardous and poisonous effluents from being discharged into the Yamuna." — Court order Assumptions: I. The water of the Yamuna is contaminated (or under threat o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A court instructs the executive to take “all necessary measures” to stop hazardous effluents entering a river. What must be true for such a directive to make sense? Given Data / Assumptions: Action demanded: stronger preventive measures. Target: hazardous/poisonous effluent discharge into the Yamuna. Concept / Approach: Orders to act usually presuppose (a) the existence of a problem (or serious risk), and (b) a gap in current effort sufficient to justify judicial intervention. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: If contamination (or imminent threat) did not exist, ordering action would be ungrounded. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: If the state machinery had already taken adequate measures, further direction would be redundant. The court’s order implies insufficiency to date. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If either assumption were false (no contamination or adequate measures already in place), the directive would lack purpose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single-assumption options omit one pillar of the order’s logic; “neither” contradicts the premise of intervention; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Missing that judicial directions typically imply both a problem and inadequate status quo response. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 13

Statement: If betting and match-fixing play a vital role in cricket—making the game ungentlemanly and ugly—then there is no point wasting precious time watching a game that cheats the innocent. Assumptions: I. This “contagion” may spread to other ga…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement recommends not watching cricket if betting and match-fixing are central to it. We must find the indispensable premise behind this recommendation. Given Data / Assumptions: Conditional frame: if betting/match-fixing are vital, the sport “cheats the innocent.” Prescription: do not waste time watching it. Concept / Approach: A necessary assumption is one without which the recommendation collapses. The advice presumes that the corrupt practices actually occur (or are significantly plausible) in cricket and that they exploit viewers. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Whether or not the problem spreads to other sports is irrelevant to the advice about watching cricket. The recommendation stands even if the issue is confined to cricket. Thus I is not necessary.Assumption II: The argument assumes the occurrence (or high likelihood) of betting/match-fixing that wrongs viewers. If this were not the case, the advice to abstain would lack justification. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false, watching would not be “wasting time on cheating entertainment,” undermining the recommendation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I as necessary adds an extraneous contagion claim. “Neither” denies the core premise; “either/both” overstate requirements. Common Pitfalls: Letting colorful language about “contagion” distract from the action-guiding premise. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 14

Statement: Metropolises may provide education, jobs, and a good lifestyle, but they score miserably on life’s basic necessities. Assumptions: I. The speaker specifically refers to irregular water and electricity supply. II. A large number of people …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The claim contrasts advanced amenities (education, jobs, lifestyle) with poor performance on “basic necessities.” We must determine which hidden premise is essential for the claim to make sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Metros: high-order services often strong. Alleged shortfall: basics for everyday living. Concept / Approach: To say metros “score miserably” on basics presupposes that a significant portion of their populations lack those basics. It does not require naming exactly which basics (water, electricity, sanitation, housing, etc.). Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Stipulating water/electricity is overly specific. The statement could refer to affordable housing, sanitation, public transport capacity, or healthcare access. Hence I is not necessary.Assumption II: The assertion of metro failure hinges on widespread deprivation of basics; otherwise the statement would be exaggerated or false. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If only a negligible number lacked basics, “score miserably” would be unwarranted; thus II must hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” wrongly require a specific interpretation (I). “Neither” contradicts the claim’s force; “only I” is too narrow. Common Pitfalls: Conflating examples (water/electricity) with the general category of “basic necessities.” Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 15

Statement: "If you lose after competing hard, that's fine. If you lose without trying hard, that disappoints me." Assumptions: I. Losing after trying hard is excusable. II. Losing without effort is regrettable. Choose the option that best identifies…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker draws a value distinction between losing with effort versus losing without effort. We must identify the assumptions that must be true for this stance to hold. Given Data / Assumptions: Outcome: loss in both cases. Criterion: presence or absence of sincere effort. Concept / Approach: Two judgments are embedded: one that excuses losses with effort, and another that condemns losses without effort. Both judgments are necessary to support the stated contrast. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: The speaker explicitly signals acceptance of losses post-effort. If losing after trying were not excusable, the first clause would be inconsistent. Hence I is necessary.Assumption II: The disappointment in the second clause rests on the premise that a loss without effort is blameworthy. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I and the first clause collapses; remove II and the second clause loses its moral force. The contrast disappears without both assumptions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-assumption choice omits one half of the evaluative contrast; “neither” contradicts both clauses; “either” is insufficient. Common Pitfalls: Missing that both halves of the statement each carry their own necessary premise. Final Answer: if both I and II are implicit.

Question 16

Statement: Poverty persists under conditions where human resources are undervalued while land and other material resources are overvalued. Assumptions: I. Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources. II. There should be a bal…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement offers a diagnostic claim: poverty endures when human resources (skills, education, health, entrepreneurship) are undervalued relative to material resources (land, capital, natural assets). Your task is to spot what the author must be assuming for this diagnosis to make sense, not to add attractive but unnecessary policy claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Poverty is linked to mispricing/misvaluation across resource classes. Human resources are systematically undervalued; material resources are overvalued. The relative valuation gap sustains poverty. Concept / Approach: Identifying implicit assumptions means finding propositions that must be true for the argument to retain meaning. A diagnostic about “persistence” typically presumes that correcting the imbalance is relevant to improvement; it does not necessarily guarantee total eradication of poverty. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess Assumption I: “Poverty can be eradicated by enhancing the value of human resources.” This goes beyond the statement. The author claims a condition that sustains poverty, not that a single lever will eradicate it entirely. Poverty may diminish or improve by rebalancing values without being fully eradicated. Hence I is not necessary.Assess Assumption II: “There should be a balance between human and material resource valuation.” Since the statement blames relative under/over-valuation for persistence, it implicitly treats balance (or at least a less distorted valuation) as desirable for remedy. If balance were irrelevant, the diagnostic loses force. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the author believing that valuation balance does not matter; then citing misvaluation as a cause of persistence would be incoherent. By contrast, the author need not believe in total eradication via HR enhancement alone for the claim to stand. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” wrongly make eradication (I) necessary. “Neither” contradicts the reliance on valuation balance (II). “Only I” is too strong and unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Equating “a key driver” with “a complete cure”; and confusing relative-balance claims with absolute guarantees. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 17

Statement: “In India, short of nearly every essential commodity, there is one product we stock in excess: ministers.” Assumptions: I. Increasing the number of ministers makes stocking essential commodities easier. II. The strength of the ministry (n…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a sardonic observation contrasting scarcity of essentials with an overabundance of ministers. It lampoons governmental bloat and implies a corrective stance regarding cabinet size. Given Data / Assumptions: Essentials are scarce; ministers are plentiful. The comparison is rhetorical, highlighting misallocation/excess. Concept / Approach: We seek what must be assumed for the critique to hold. The jab presumes that having many ministers is undesirable and should be trimmed; it does not depend on any causal claim that more ministers help stock commodities. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “More ministers make stocking essentials easier.” The quip suggests the opposite—too many ministers despite shortages—without implying that increasing ministers helps with supply. This is not necessary.Assumption II: “Ministry size should be reduced.” The entire thrust is that the country has an excess of ministers while lacking essentials; this assumes reduction is preferable or warranted. Hence II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If II were false (no problem with many ministers), the contrast loses bite. If I were true/false, the sarcasm stands regardless—there is no dependence on I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” wrongly involve I; “neither” denies the implied prescriptive stance; “only I” conflicts with the satire’s logic. Common Pitfalls: Treating a rhetorical comparison as a functional/causal claim about supply chains. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 18

Statement: “Courts are no longer cathedrals; they are casinos where the throw of the dice matters.” Assumptions: I. Nowadays, courts do not provide justice to deserving people. II. The courts are not fulfilling the objective for which they were esta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker contrasts “cathedrals” (symbolizing sanctity and principles) with “casinos” (chance and unpredictability). The metaphor asserts systemic unreliability in judicial outcomes. Given Data / Assumptions: Courts should deliver consistent, principled justice. Current functioning allegedly resembles randomness/chance. Concept / Approach: We must identify the minimal premise without which the metaphor would not bite. The core claim is institutional failure to meet its founding objective. It is not necessary to add a specific claimant category (“deserving people”). Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “Courts do not provide justice to deserving people.” While plausible, the statement’s thrust is broader—unreliability in general. Even if some deserving litigants win, the casino metaphor could still hold. Hence I is not necessary.Assumption II: “Courts are not fulfilling their objective.” This is essential; if courts were fulfilling their mission, calling them casinos would be inappropriate. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Consider a situation where outcomes are unpredictable yet occasionally right; the criticism still centers on failure of the institutional purpose (predictable, principled adjudication), aligning with II without requiring I to be universally true. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” overstate requirements; “neither” contradicts the critique; “only I” narrows the claim improperly. Common Pitfalls: Confusing an illustrative subgroup (“deserving people”) with the institution-wide objective. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 19

Statement: Though the Indian cricket team has returned from a disastrous tour, they should not be written off. Assumptions: I. In the past, the team had excellent tours. II. In the future, the team may perform excellently again (the potential remain…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement advises against a hasty, definitive negative judgment (“writing off”) after a single disastrous tour. It trades on the idea of future potential rather than resting on a historical record. Given Data / Assumptions: Recent performance was poor (“disastrous tour”). Recommendation: do not conclude that the team is finished. Concept / Approach: To argue against writing off, one must assume that future outcomes could be better than the latest result. Past excellence may bolster confidence but is not logically required. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: “Past tours were excellent.” This is not necessary. One can resist writing off a team on the grounds of potential, development, or variance even without a shining past.Assumption II: “Future excellent performance is possible.” This is required; if future excellence were impossible, writing the team off would be rational. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: Even for a historically mediocre team, it is coherent to claim “don’t write them off” if improvement is possible (new players, strategy shifts, recovery from injuries). Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both/either” wrongly pull in past-excellence; “neither” denies the prospect that underpins the advice; “only I” is irrelevant to the core logic. Common Pitfalls: Overemphasizing historical records in a forward-looking claim about potential. Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Question 20

Statement: There are lessons to be learned even in defeats. Assumptions: I. Some people do not take their defeats seriously. II. People who learn from their defeats may become successful in the future. Choose the option that best identifies which as…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement asserts a general principle: defeats can be instructive. In critical reasoning, we identify which hidden premise(s) must hold true for this claim to make sense as advice or observation about improvement. Given Data / Assumptions: Defeats occur and can contain information or feedback. Learning from negative outcomes can influence future results. Concept / Approach: To be “implicit,” an assumption must be necessary for the statement’s logic. The claim focuses on the possibility and value of extracting lessons from failure, not on how people currently treat defeat. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess I: “Some people do not take their defeats seriously.” The main statement does not require any claim about people’s present attitudes. Even if everyone already takes defeats seriously—or if no one does—the truth that defeats can teach lessons remains. Hence I is not required.Assess II: “People who learn from their defeats may become successful in the future.” The prescriptive force of the statement (that defeats are worth learning from) assumes that such learning can improve future performance or outcomes. If learning could not help, defeats would not be valuable as lessons. Thus II is necessary. Verification / Alternative check: If lessons from defeats never improved future results, the claim would be empty. Conversely, the statement remains coherent regardless of whether “some people” take defeats seriously, so I is not required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Both” and “either” unnecessarily include I. “Neither” denies II, undermining the statement’s point. “Only I” misses the core improvement premise. Common Pitfalls: Confusing descriptive claims about current behavior (I) with the normative/causal claim about learning leading to improvement (II). Final Answer: if only assumption II is implicit.

Statement and Assumption Questions