Question 1

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: I cannot contact you on phone from Karshik. Assumptions: I. Telephone facility is not available at Karshik. II. Nowadays it is difficult to contact on phone.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The task is to identify what must be assumed for the speaker’s statement about phone contact from Karshik to make sense. The context is practical communication constraints tied to a location.Given Data / Assumptions:Speaker says: “I cannot contact you on phone from Karshik.”Assumption I: There is no (or effectively unavailable) telephone facility at Karshik for the speaker.Assumption II: Generally, in modern times, contacting by phone is difficult.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is a necessary, local expectation behind the statement. The claim is place-specific (“from Karshik”), so any required assumption must also be localized, not a sweeping statement about phones “nowadays.”Step-by-Step Solution:1) Why can’t the speaker call from Karshik? A plausible necessary assumption is that Karshik lacks usable phone service for the speaker (no facility, outage, poor connectivity).2) Assumption I captures that necessity: if a phone facility is not available (or not functioning), then the inability is explained.3) Assumption II makes an unrelated, universal claim about present-day phone difficulty. The statement does not rely on this; the problem is explicitly tied to “from Karshik,” not to phone calls in general.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: “Telephone facility is available and working in Karshik for the speaker.” Then the statement “I cannot contact you from Karshik” loses its rationale unless a different reason is supplied. The assumption (lack/unavailability of facility) is therefore necessary. Negate II: Phone calls are generally easy. The original statement still holds because it is location-specific. Hence II is not required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II, Either, Neither, or Both: All overgeneralize or ignore the location-specific nature of the claim.Common Pitfalls:Assuming the speaker asserts absolute nonexistence of phones. The necessary assumption is simply that no usable facility is available to the speaker from Karshik at the time, which the option paraphrases as “not available at Karshik.”Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 2

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: I have written several letters to the branch manager regarding my account but have not received any reply so far. Assumptions: I. The branch manager is expected to read letters received from custo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker complains about not receiving a reply from a bank’s branch manager. Such a complaint presupposes norms of service: reading and replying to customer correspondence.Given Data / Assumptions:Multiple letters were sent; no reply yet.Assumption I: managers should read customers’ letters.Assumption II: managers should respond to customers’ letters.Concept / Approach:For a grievance to be meaningful, there must be an expectation violated. Banking service ethics presume both perusal and response to account-related letters from customers.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If the manager were not expected to read customer letters, writing would be pointless; so I is necessary.2) The essence of the complaint is “no reply,” which presumes a duty to reply; hence II is necessary.3) With both norms in place, the complaint has force; remove either and it collapses.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I or II and the writer’s grievance loses its basis: without an expectation to read or reply, the absence of response is not a fault. Therefore both are implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: ignores the other service norm required to make the complaint rational.Either/Neither: do not reflect the dual expectations inherent in customer-service correspondence.Common Pitfalls:Separating procedural reading from the communicative duty to reply. In customer service, both are assumed together for accountability.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 3

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement (Advertisement): “Use our product to improve your child’s memory. It is based on natural herbs and has no harmful side effects.” Assumptions: I. People generally prefer medical products that are us…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:An advertisement highlights efficacy (“improve memory”) and safety (“no harmful side effects”). What beliefs about consumers must be true for these claims to be persuasive selling points?Given Data / Assumptions:The product is marketed on usefulness and safety.Assumption I: consumers value usefulness and safety when choosing medical products.Assumption II: parents care about improving their child’s memory.Concept / Approach:Advertising relies on assumptions about what the audience values. If the audience did not value those attributes, the message would be ineffective.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The mention of “no harmful side effects” presumes safety influences purchase decisions. Otherwise, saying it would be pointless. I is implicit.2) The focus on “improve your child’s memory” presumes parents see memory improvement as desirable and worth purchasing. II is implicit.3) Since both points are the ad’s selling pivots, both assumptions underlie the message’s strategy.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: people don’t care about safety; then that claim is wasted copy. Negate II: parents don’t value memory improvement; then the central benefit has no appeal. The ad’s persuasiveness collapses when either is denied, confirming both are assumed.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only one implicit: ignores the dual pillars of the message.Either/Neither: do not reflect the clear marketing logic of the advertisement.Common Pitfalls:Reading “generally prefer” as “always.” Assumptions need only reflect typical audience values, not universal truths.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 4

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: “If I am not well, you will have to go for the meeting,” a manager tells a subordinate. Assumptions: I. It is not necessary that only manager-level personnel attend the meeting. II. If the manager…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The manager assigns a contingency: if unwell, the subordinate will attend the meeting. We must uncover the hidden beliefs that make this direction reasonable.Given Data / Assumptions:Attendance can be delegated.Assumption I: non-managers can represent in the meeting.Assumption II: the manager intends to go if healthy.Concept / Approach:Directives often embed permissions and preferences: permission that a subordinate may attend, and preference that the manager would otherwise go himself.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If only managers could attend, delegation would be impossible. Therefore I is implicit.2) The “if I am not well” condition indicates the manager expects to attend when well; otherwise the condition is unnecessary. Hence II is implicit.3) Both together justify the conditional delegation.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: only managers may attend — the instruction becomes invalid. Negate II: the manager would not go even if well — the conditional clause becomes misleading. Both negations undermine the statement, confirming the assumptions are required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: misses the other essential premise.Either/Neither: fails the necessity test demonstrated by negation.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “allowed to attend” with “best person to attend.” The assumption is about permission/possibility, not desirability of representation quality.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 5

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: The Principal instructed all teachers to be careful in class because some students may disturb other students. Assumptions: I. Teachers will handle the situation properly and identify the naughty …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The Principal issues a cautionary directive to teachers about potential disruptions. We must determine which underlying beliefs are necessary for this instruction to be meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:Teachers are asked to be careful to prevent disturbance.Assumption I: Teachers can identify and manage disruptive students.Assumption II: Students will welcome the decision.Concept / Approach:An instruction assumes capacity and agency in the audience (teachers). It does not need student approval to be valid; policy can be enforced regardless of student sentiment.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If teachers could not handle or identify disruptive behavior, the instruction would be futile. Hence I is necessary.2) The expectation that “students will welcome the decision” is unnecessary; discipline policies are not contingent on student approval. II is not required for the instruction to make sense.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: teachers cannot manage disruptions — then instructing them to “be careful” has no practical effect. Negate II: students may not welcome it — the directive remains rational and enforceable. Thus only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II, Either, Neither, Both: Each includes a non-necessary sentiment about student approval or excludes the necessary management capability of teachers.Common Pitfalls:Assuming every stakeholder must approve of a policy. Administrative directives typically presume staff ability, not universal popularity.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 6

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: The present examination system needs overhauling thoroughly. Assumptions: I. The present examination system is obsolete or inadequate. II. Overhauling will result in improvement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Calling for a thorough overhaul of an examination system implies judgments about its current state and about the efficacy of overhauling. We must surface those necessary judgments (assumptions).Given Data / Assumptions:A recommendation: “needs overhauling thoroughly.”Assumption I: the current system is obsolete/inadequate.Assumption II: overhauling is expected to improve matters.Concept / Approach:Recommendations presuppose two things: (a) the status quo is unsatisfactory, and (b) the proposed remedy is beneficial. Without both, the recommendation lacks rationale.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If the present system were adequate, a thorough overhaul would be unnecessary. Thus I is implicit.2) If overhauling did not lead to improvement, recommending it would be pointless or harmful. Hence II is implicit.3) Both premises support the call for overhaul; remove either and the prescription loses force.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: the system is fine — recommendation collapses. Negate II: overhaul will not improve — recommendation is irrational. The necessity test confirms both are assumptions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: misses half the rationale behind a policy recommendation.Either/Neither: fail the negation test of necessity.Common Pitfalls:Interpreting “obsolete” narrowly as “old.” The core is inadequacy for current needs; “overhauling” targets functional improvement, which is the assumed benefit.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 7

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: “Read this book to get detailed and most comprehensive information on this issue.” Assumptions: I. The person seeking this information can read. II. There are other books available on this issue.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The recommendation is to read a specific book for comprehensive information. What must be taken for granted for this advice to be meaningful?Given Data / Assumptions:Advice: “Read this book.”Assumption I: the target can read.Assumption II: other books on the topic exist.Concept / Approach:Advice about reading presupposes literacy/ability to read. Whether other books exist is irrelevant to the validity of recommending a particular best source.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If the person cannot read, the advice is inapplicable. Thus I is implicit.2) The statement compares quality (“detailed and most comprehensive”) but does not require the existence of other books; “most comprehensive” can be understood as a claim of thoroughness without enumerating alternatives. Hence II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: the person cannot read — the instruction fails. Negate II: there are no other books — the advice still stands; the recommended book may be the sole comprehensive source. Therefore only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II, Either, Neither, Both: Misstate necessity by importing competition between sources that the statement does not require.Common Pitfalls:Over-interpreting “most” as an absolute comparative requiring multiple items. In everyday persuasive language, it often signals “very comprehensive,” and the advice remains sensible regardless.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 8

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: Traffic jams on most city roads have become a regular feature during monsoon. Assumptions: I. Material used for road construction cannot withstand monsoon, causing innumerable potholes. II. The nu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement notes a seasonal pattern: frequent traffic jams during monsoon. We must identify which causal belief is being assumed to explain this recurrence.Given Data / Assumptions:Observation: jams are regular in monsoon.Assumption I: poor road durability in rains leads to potholes and congestion.Assumption II: traffic volume increases in monsoon vs other seasons.Concept / Approach:When a statement highlights a seasonal recurrence, typical implicit causes relate to seasonal conditions (rain damage, waterlogging) rather than to counter-seasonal spikes in vehicle count. Monsoon-damaged surfaces slowing traffic is a standard underpinning assumption.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Link monsoon to road condition degradation (water damage → potholes → slower speeds → jams). This causal chain supports the observation. I is therefore implicit.2) The idea that more vehicles are on the road in monsoon is counterintuitive; many people actually travel less in heavy rains. The statement does not rely on a vehicle-count surge. II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: roads withstand monsoon perfectly — then jams would require a different explanation; the highlighted seasonal regularity loses a natural cause. Negate II: vehicle numbers do not increase — the statement can still be true due to worse road conditions. Thus only I is needed.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II, Either, Both, or Neither: They either introduce an unnecessary condition or ignore the plausible monsoon-specific cause tied to infrastructure.Common Pitfalls:Assuming every repeated event must be due to demand spikes. Supply-side constraints (road quality) can be the critical seasonal factor.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 9

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: “Guests should be provided lunch,” says A to B. Assumptions: I. Unless specifically told, lunch may not be provided. II. Guests will be present during lunch time.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A directs B to arrange lunch for guests. We must uncover the minimal beliefs that make this instruction necessary and sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:A gives a specific instruction about lunch for guests.Assumption I: Without the instruction, lunch might be omitted.Assumption II: Guests will be present around lunchtime (so serving lunch is relevant).Concept / Approach:Instructions presuppose both a need to override uncertainty and the relevance of timing. If it were certain that lunch would be provided anyway, or if guests were not present at lunch time, the instruction would be redundant or pointless.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Necessity of instruction (I): A issues it to ensure lunch is not skipped. This assumes omission is possible unless told.2) Relevance of timing (II): Providing lunch presupposes guests will be there at lunchtime; otherwise the directive has no purpose.3) Both assumptions jointly support the need and usefulness of the directive.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: lunch would be provided anyway without being told — then A’s statement is unnecessary. Negate II: guests won’t be around at lunch — then arranging lunch is wasteful. Each negation undermines the statement, confirming that both are required assumptions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: drops one of the two necessities (need for instruction and applicability of timing).Either/Neither: fail the necessity test; both are needed for the instruction to make sense.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking the time-context of directives. Logistics instructions typically assume both occasion relevance and the possibility of default omission without explicit direction.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 10

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The city bus transport corporation has decided to change routes of three buses plying between points A and B in the city to make them economically viable. Assumptions: I. These buses may get more …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is an assumptions question from critical reasoning. We are given an administrative decision (changing bus routes to improve economic viability) and asked which underlying beliefs must be true for the decision to make sense. An assumption is an unstated idea that the author/decision-maker takes for granted and that is necessary for the conclusion or action to be reasonable.Given Data / Assumptions:Decision: Change routes of three buses between points A and B to make them economically viable.Assumption I: Revised routes may attract more passengers.Assumption II: Many people on old routes may not use the bus service.Concept / Approach:To test an assumption, ask: “If this were false, would the decision still be sensible?” If the answer is “no,” it is implicit (required). If the decision can still stand without it, then it is not implicit. Also avoid adding extra information not required by the decision’s goal (economic viability).Step-by-Step Solution:Goal = better economics. Main lever = ridership and/or revenue per km.If assumption I is false (revised routes do not gain passengers), then simply changing routes would not help viability. Therefore assumption I is necessary.Assumption II concerns people on old routes not availing the service. Even if some old-route riders stop using the bus, the decision could still be right provided overall ridership/revenue improves. This belief is not required for the decision; at best it is a side effect, not a necessary premise.Verification / Alternative check:Try negating: If buses do not get more passengers on the revised routes, “economically viable” would be unlikely—so I is essential. If people on old routes continue to use alternative stops or feeder routes, the decision could still work—so II is not needed.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only (option b) ignores the economic objective.Either I or II (option c) is incorrect because I is specifically required but II is not.Neither (option d) is wrong since I is necessary.Both (option e) is too strong; II is not required.Common Pitfalls:Confusing possible side effects (losing some old-route riders) with necessary premises for the intended outcome.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 11

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The patient's condition would improve after operation. Assumptions: I. The patient can be operated upon in this condition. II. The patient cannot be operated upon in this condition.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem examines what the speaker must believe for the statement “the patient's condition would improve after operation” to be meaningful. In assumption questions, we look for premises that are necessary—not just helpful or plausible—behind the claim.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Post-operative improvement is expected.Assumption I: Surgery is feasible in the current condition.Assumption II: Surgery is not feasible in the current condition.Concept / Approach:A statement predicting improvement “after operation” presupposes that the operation can indeed be performed (feasibility). Any assumption that directly contradicts feasibility would undermine the statement and therefore cannot be implicit in support of it.Step-by-Step Solution:If assumption I were false (patient cannot be operated upon now), then the statement about post-operative improvement would be meaningless or deceptive. Hence I must be true to make sense of the claim.Assumption II explicitly denies the feasibility of surgery. That contradicts the statement’s premise and thus cannot be an implicit assumption supporting it.Verification / Alternative check:Negation test for I: “The patient cannot be operated upon” makes the original claim void → I is necessary.Negation test for II: “The patient can be operated upon” still supports the claim; thus II is not necessary and indeed conflicts with the claim.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II (option b) is contradictory to the premise.Either I or II (option c) is impossible because I and II are mutually exclusive.Neither (option d) ignores that feasibility is required.Both (option e) cannot hold since II negates I.Common Pitfalls:Overlooking feasibility assumptions whenever a statement speaks about the outcome of a proposed action.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 12

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Provide mid-day meals to children in primary schools to increase the number of students attending schools. Assumptions: I. Mid-day meals will attract the children to the schools. II. Those childre…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy recommendations often rest on multiple assumptions. Here, the measure “provide mid-day meals” aims specifically to increase attendance. We must identify which beliefs must be true for this policy to plausibly achieve its target.Given Data / Assumptions:Goal: Increase the number of students attending school.Instrument: Mid-day meals in primary schools.Assumption I: Meals will attract children to school.Assumption II: Food-deprived children will be motivated to attend for the meals.Concept / Approach:For the policy to work, the incentive must change behavior. Assumption I captures the general behavioral link: meals → increased attendance. Assumption II captures a key target group likely to respond (nutritionally deprived children). While I is the primary requirement, II reasonably underpins the mechanism of impact and is often part of the rationale in such programs, making both assumptions implicit in the policy logic.Step-by-Step Solution:If I is false (meals do not attract children), the policy cannot increase attendance → I is necessary.If II is false (deprived children would not attend even with meals), the expected boost among the most responsive segment vanishes, greatly weakening the policy’s rationale. The statement’s targeted logic (increase by offering meals) tacitly banks on such children responding → II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Real-world school feeding schemes rely on both general attractiveness and the specific draw for undernourished children. Without either, attendance gains become doubtful.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I (option a) overlooks the central target group that drives the effect.Only II (option b) ignores the broader draw.Either (option c) is too weak; both complement each other.Neither (option d) contradicts the explicit rationale.Common Pitfalls:Treating a core beneficiary segment as “extra” rather than integral to the intended effect of an incentive policy.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 13

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: This year most shops and departmental stores are offering prizes and discounts on purchases to attract customers. Assumptions: I. The shops and departmental stores have earned a lot of profit and …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement reports a widespread promotional tactic (prizes/discounts) explicitly aimed at “attracting customers.” We must infer what condition in the market makes such tactics relevant. In assumption questions, focus on what must be true for the stated action to make business sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Observed action: widespread discounts and prize schemes this year.Stated objective: attract customers (i.e., stimulate demand).Assumption I: High profits are being shared with customers.Assumption II: Inventory is ample but sales are sluggish; customer enthusiasm is low.Concept / Approach:Discounting is generally used to boost demand, clear stock, or compete in a slow market. Therefore, II aligns naturally with the motive “to attract customers.” Assumption I (profit sharing) is neither necessary nor typical; firms may discount even when profits are thin to chase volume or reduce inventory.Step-by-Step Solution:Ask: If II were false (sales already strong, customers cheerful), would mass discounting “to attract customers” be needed? Less likely—so II supports the rationale.Ask: If I were false (no extra profits to share), could the discounting still make sense? Yes—discounts can be strategic, not philanthropic. Thus I is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Business logic commonly ties promotions to demand stimulation when sales lag or competition rises, consistent with II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I (option a) imputes generosity, which is not required to justify discounts.Either (option c) is too weak; I is not required, II fits.Neither (option d) is incorrect because II is reasonably implicit.Both (option e) overstates by adding the unnecessary profit-sharing motive.Common Pitfalls:Confusing promotional pricing with “sharing profits”; promotions are typically strategic, not charitable.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 14

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: In case of any difficulty about this case, you may contact our company's lawyer. Assumptions: I. Each company has a lawyer of its own. II. The company's lawyer is thoroughly briefed about this cas…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The instruction directs a person to consult “our company's lawyer” for difficulties in a specific case. We must uncover what conditions must hold for this instruction to be effective and meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:Directive: Contact the company’s lawyer for difficulties about this case.Assumption I: Every company has its own lawyer.Assumption II: This specific company’s lawyer is briefed on this case.Concept / Approach:Assumptions are needed to make the instruction workable. The universality claim in I is not needed—we only need that this company has a lawyer. Assumption II is necessary: if the lawyer is not briefed, contacting them would not resolve difficulties in the case, undermining the directive’s purpose.Step-by-Step Solution:Check I: The statement refers to “our company's lawyer,” implying this company has one. It does not require that all companies universally have one. Thus I is not implicit.Check II: For “contact the lawyer” to be a useful instruction, the lawyer must be equipped with details about the case. Otherwise the instruction fails. Hence II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: “The lawyer is not briefed.” Then contacting them cannot reasonably address the difficulty, contradicting the directive’s intent.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I (option a) overgeneralizes.Either (option c) is too weak; II specifically is required.Neither (option d) ignores the necessity of II.Both (option e) adds an unnecessary universal claim.Common Pitfalls:Reading “each company” into a statement that only speaks about one company’s arrangement.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 15

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Imprisonment for 27 years made Nelson Mandela the President. Assumptions: I. Only those who are imprisoned for 27 years will become the President. II. To become the President, imprisonment is a qu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The sentence attributes a causal role to Mandela’s long imprisonment in his eventual presidency. However, causal attributions do not automatically generalize to universal rules or required qualifications. We must test whether either strong generalization is actually assumed by the statement.Given Data / Assumptions:Specific claim: Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment contributed to him becoming President.Assumption I: Only those imprisoned 27 years can become President (a universal condition).Assumption II: Imprisonment is a qualification for presidency (a necessary criterion).Concept / Approach:From the occurrence of one historical path, we cannot infer a universal necessity or exclusivity. The statement is about a singular, notable case, not a rule for all. Therefore, neither I nor II is required for the statement to make sense.Step-by-Step Solution:Check I: “Only who will be imprisoned for 27 years will become the President” is an extreme universalization not implied by a single example.Check II: Treating “imprisonment” as a formal qualification is also unwarranted. Many presidents have never been imprisoned.Hence, the original statement makes a causal observation about one person’s journey, without assuming either universal rule.Verification / Alternative check:If both I and II are false, the original sentence can still be true for Mandela's specific case. Thus neither is necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Options a, b, c, e presume at least one sweeping generalization that the statement does not require.Common Pitfalls:Mistaking a particular causal narrative for a universal norm or qualification criterion.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 16

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Nobody can predict how long our country would take to contain the unfortunate and disastrous terrorist activities. Assumptions: I. It is impossible to put an end to terrorist activities. II. Effor…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement expresses uncertainty about the duration needed to contain terrorism. Our task is to identify what must be true for such a statement to be meaningful. We must distinguish between “uncertain duration” and “impossibility.”Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: No one can predict how long it will take to contain terrorism.Assumption I: Ending terrorism is impossible.Assumption II: Containment efforts are underway (or will be undertaken).Concept / Approach:Unpredictability of duration presupposes an ongoing or intended attempt; otherwise “how long it would take” is meaningless. But “impossible to end” is stronger than needed; one can be unsure about “how long” without declaring “never.”Step-by-Step Solution:If II were false (no efforts at all), the phrase “how long it would take” loses context. Therefore II is implicit.Assumption I says ending is impossible. The statement only says the time is unpredictable—not that success is impossible—therefore I is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Replace with a different context: “Nobody can predict how long it will take to repair the bridge” implies work is or will be done, not that it is impossible. Same logic here.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I (option a) misreads uncertainty as impossibility.Either (option c) and Both (option e) incorrectly include I.Neither (option d) ignores the necessity of ongoing/planned efforts.Common Pitfalls:Equating “cannot predict how long” with “cannot be done.” The former is about uncertainty; the latter about impossibility.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 17

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The management of XYZ Pvt. Ltd. asked the workers' union to call off the strike immediately; otherwise the management would be forced to close down the factory. Assumptions: I. No alternative othe…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This statement presents a conditional threat meant to pressure the union to end a strike. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for the threat to be a rational negotiating tactic.Given Data / Assumptions:Management says: “Call off strike immediately; otherwise we will close the factory.”Assumption I: There is truly no alternative other than closure.Assumption II: The threat is expected to influence the union's decision.Concept / Approach:For a threat to be issued as leverage, it must be assumed that it will produce pressure—that is the purpose of stating it. However, it need not be the case that closure is literally the only remaining option; management can threaten closure even if other (less preferred) options exist, to shift bargaining power.Step-by-Step Solution:Check II: If the threat could have no effect, there would be no point in making it. Hence II is implicit.Check I: “No other alternative” is an extremely strong claim that is not necessary; a threat can be strategic rather than the absolute last resort. Therefore I is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negotiation theory shows threats are used to shape incentives even when multiple alternatives exist. Thus only II is required for the statement to make sense.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only (option a) overlooks the essential persuasive function of the threat.Either (option c) and Both (option e) incorrectly include the extreme necessity claim in I.Neither (option d) ignores that II must hold.Common Pitfalls:Treating strategic statements as admissions of “no alternative” rather than as bargaining tools.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 18

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The end of a financial year is the ideal time to review the performance of various companies. Assumptions: I. All companies undertake such a review at the end of a financial year. II. The performa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement claims that the end of a financial year is an “ideal time” for performance review. We must detect which conditions must hold for such a review to be feasible and meaningful, without overstating universality.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Financial-year end is ideal for reviewing company performance.Assumption I: All companies do this review at that time.Assumption II: Necessary performance data is available at that time.Concept / Approach:Calling a time “ideal” does not imply universal behavior; it suggests suitability, often because accounting closes and data crystallizes. The necessary condition is the availability of performance data for meaningful analysis, not that every company necessarily conducts the review then.Step-by-Step Solution:I is a universal claim (“all companies…”). The statement does not require this; it can be ideal even if some companies do it differently.II is required: No review is possible if the data are unavailable. Year-end typically finalizes accounts, making performance data accessible.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: If data are not available, the “ideal time” claim collapses—no review can occur. Negating I does not harm the claim’s plausibility.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only (option a) overgeneralizes behavior.Either (option c) and Both (option e) incorrectly elevate the universal behavior claim to necessity.Neither (option d) ignores the essential role of data availability.Common Pitfalls:Confusing an “ideal time” assertion with “everyone must do it then.”Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 19

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The party president has directed that no member will give press briefings or interviews to government and private TV channels about the discussion in the scheduled party meeting. Assumptions: I. P…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The directive aims to restrict information flow by prohibiting members from briefing the press. We must identify what must be true for issuing such a directive to be a rational step toward the intended communication control.Given Data / Assumptions:Directive: No member should brief the press about the scheduled meeting's discussions.Assumption I: Members will comply with the president’s directive.Assumption II: Consequently, the public will not learn what happened in the meeting.Concept / Approach:For the directive to be effective, compliance is a necessary assumption. However, II asserts a guaranteed outcome (complete secrecy among the public), which is stronger than needed. Information can still leak via other channels (documents, non-member staff, investigative reporting). The order does not require a guarantee of total secrecy—only an attempt to reduce disclosures via members.Step-by-Step Solution:Check I: Without member compliance, the directive would be pointless. Therefore I is implicit.Check II: Even with compliance, the public might still learn details through other means. Hence II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: If members will not observe the directive, it fails in purpose. Negate II: Public may still know via leaks; the directive could still be rational as a deterrent measure. Thus I is necessary; II is not.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II (option b) ignores the prerequisite of compliance.Either (option c) and Both (option e) overstate the necessity of II.Neither (option d) is incorrect because I must hold.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that a communication ban guarantees total secrecy rather than merely reducing authorized disclosures.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 20

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions:  Statement: “To keep myself up-to-date, I always listen to the 9:00 p.m. news on the radio,” a candidate tells the interview board. Assumptions: I. The candidate does not read newspapers. II. Recen…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This verbal reasoning problem asks you to detect which assumptions are logically required for the speaker’s statement to make sense. The candidate claims that listening to the 9:00 p.m. radio news keeps them up-to-date. We must determine whether the hidden assumptions about newspapers and radio exclusivity are necessary for that claim.Given Data / Assumptions:The candidate habitually listens to the 9:00 p.m. radio news to stay current.Assumption I: The candidate does not read newspapers.Assumption II: Only radio broadcasts recent news.Concept / Approach:In assumption questions, we look for what must be true (not what could be true). The candidate’s practice of listening to radio news does not require exclusive reliance on radio nor the absence of reading habits. It merely presents one effective method the candidate uses.Step-by-Step Solution:Identify the conclusion: Listening to the 9:00 p.m. radio bulletin keeps the candidate up-to-date.Test Assumption I by negation: Even if the candidate also reads newspapers, the statement about radio remains valid. Therefore I is not necessary.Test Assumption II by negation: If television, web portals, or newspapers also provide recent news, the candidate can still choose radio as a sufficient method. Exclusivity is not needed; thus II is not necessary.Hence, neither I nor II is required for the claim to hold.Verification / Alternative check:Consider the sufficiency perspective: Radio news can be one adequate channel among many. The statement neither rules out other media nor asserts that radio is the only source of timely updates.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I is implicit: Incorrect; the candidate could still read newspapers.Only II is implicit: Incorrect; the claim does not hinge on radio being exclusive.Either I or II / Both I and II: Incorrect; neither is necessary.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that mentioning one method implies excluding all others, or that effectiveness implies exclusivity.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter