Question 1

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: A advises B, “You must learn to refer to a dictionary if you want to become a good writer.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Only writers refer to the dictionary. II. All writers, good or bad, refer to the dict…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Many advice statements suggest a helpful practice without asserting anything about exclusivity or universality. Here, dictionary use is recommended as a means to become a good writer. We must test two extreme claims for necessity: “only writers use dictionaries” and “all writers use dictionaries.”Given Data / Assumptions:Advice: Use a dictionary to improve writing quality.Assumption I: Only writers use dictionaries.Assumption II: All writers use dictionaries (universal behavior).Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption must be essential for the advice to make sense.Effectiveness of dictionary use for writing does not require claims about who else (non-writers) uses it nor that all writers do so.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I is irrelevant. Non-writers (e.g., students, editors) can use dictionaries too; that does not affect the advice’s validity.Assumption II is also not required. Some good writers may not frequently consult a dictionary; the advice still stands as a recommended path, not a universal law.Verification / Alternative check:The advice remains meaningful even if many non-writers use dictionaries and even if some writers do not. Therefore neither I nor II is necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Picking I, II, Either, or Both introduces unwarranted extremes that the statement never relies on.Common Pitfalls:Mistaking a recommended means for an exclusive or universal condition.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 2

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Only participative management can contain industrial indiscipline and ensure a quality of life for the worker.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Quality of life in our industries is already better. II. Indisci…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This statement asserts a causal and exclusive claim: participative management is the only way to curb indiscipline and thereby ensure workers’ quality of life. To sustain this, the author must presuppose a link between indiscipline and quality of life, but not that current quality is already good.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Participative management contains indiscipline and ensures quality of life.Assumption I: Current industrial quality of life is better (i.e., already good).Assumption II: Indiscipline harms quality of life; reducing it improves quality of life.Concept / Approach:To say “contain indiscipline and ensure quality of life,” one must assume indiscipline affects quality of life.Nothing in the statement requires that present quality of life is already better; in fact, the prescription typically implies current issues.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption II is necessary: without a causal link between indiscipline and poor quality of life, controlling indiscipline would not ensure quality of life.Assumption I is not necessary and likely false; the need for policy change suggests current quality is not adequate.Verification / Alternative check:Eliminate II: The core claim loses its mechanism. Eliminate I: The claim still stands, perhaps even strengthened.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I, Either, Neither, Both: These either import an unnecessary positive status quo or ignore the needed causal link.Common Pitfalls:Confusing a proposed remedy with an assertion that things are already good.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 3

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement claim: “You really get your money’s worth when you buy from our shop.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Other shops price goods above their worth. II. Customers want full value for their money.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Promotional claims are anchored in what consumers desire. The slogan promises value equivalent to price. To function as persuasive communication, it must assume that buyers seek full value, but it need not assume anything about competitors’ pricing strategies.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Buying here yields full value for money.Assumption I: Competitors price above worth.Assumption II: Consumers want full value for money.Concept / Approach:An advertisement’s appeal is built on a customer’s underlying preference (value for money).To be meaningful, the statement does not require that others overprice; parity or even some competitors giving equal value does not negate the claim.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption II is essential: if customers do not care about value-for-money, the slogan has little persuasive power.Assumption I is not necessary: the shop can make a value claim even if other shops also price fairly.Verification / Alternative check:Drop II and keep I: The ad loses relevance. Keep II and drop I: The ad still persuades; thus only II is required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Either / Neither / Both: These wrongly presume competitor behavior is necessary for the appeal’s logic.Common Pitfalls:Overgeneralizing that comparative claims require competitors to be worse.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 4

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The next meeting of the Institute’s Governing Board will be held after one year.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. The Institute will continue to function after one year. II. The Governing Board will be dissol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Scheduling a meeting one year in advance presumes the organization and its governing body will exist at that time. It does not presuppose dissolution; in fact, it presumes continuity.Given Data / Assumptions:Plan: Meeting after one year.Assumption I: The Institute will be operational then.Assumption II: The Governing Board will be dissolved after one year.Concept / Approach:Forward planning assumes institutional continuity.Dissolution would contradict the scheduling of a future meeting.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I is necessary; otherwise setting a meeting is pointless.Assumption II is contrary to the act of scheduling; not necessary and likely false.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I: planning loses sense. Remove II: planning remains valid; hence only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option involving II treats a contradiction as necessary, which it is not.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “after one year” with “for one year only.”Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 5

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: The Municipal Corporation bans entry of vehicles from suburban areas into the main city via main routes during peak hours to avoid traffic congestion. Assumptions to evaluate: I. People from suburban areas…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Policy announcements imply a view about what should or should not happen to achieve a goal. Here the goal is to reduce peak-hour congestion by restricting suburban vehicles on main routes. We must identify the minimum presuppositions enabling this ban to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Decision: Ban suburban vehicles on main routes during peak hours.Assumption I: Suburban commuters ought to avoid bringing vehicles then (normative backing of the ban).Assumption II: City residents’ vehicles are not a source of congestion.Concept / Approach:A ban directed at a specific group assumes curbing that group’s vehicles will help; it carries an implied “should not” for that group at that time.However, the policy need not assume that city vehicles never cause congestion; the ban could still be helpful even if city vehicles contribute to some extent.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I is necessary—otherwise, there is no normative basis for prohibiting suburban entries during peak hours.Assumption II is not necessary—congestion may have multiple contributors; targeting one major contributor can still be justified.Verification / Alternative check:Keep I and drop II: The policy retains sense. Keep II and drop I: The ban lacks a directed rationale.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II or Both: Overstate the requirement by demanding an absolute about city vehicles.Common Pitfalls:Assuming a policy must eliminate all causes rather than address a significant one.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 6

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “A good book, even if costly, gets sold.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Some books are better (good) than others. II. Most books are costly.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement contrasts “good” (quality) with “costly” (price) and asserts that quality drives sales despite high price. For such a claim, the language presupposes the existence of a quality distinction among books, but not any particular proportion of costly books in the market.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Good books sell even if expensive.Assumption I: Quality varies; some books are good, others not.Assumption II: Most books are costly.Concept / Approach:Using the category “good book” relies on the concept of comparative quality.The statement makes no claim about how many books are costly; it only says price does not stop sales for good books.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption I is necessary because the sentence would be vacuous if no distinction in quality existed.Assumption II is unnecessary; the truth of the claim does not depend on the prevalence of costly books.Verification / Alternative check:If I were false, the predicate “good” would be meaningless and the claim collapses. If II were false, the claim can still stand.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II / Either / Neither / Both: These either impose an irrelevant market share condition or ignore the needed quality distinction.Common Pitfalls:Reading a market-wide frequency assumption into a statement about a subset.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 7

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: WHO will double assistance to health programmes in India because per-capita health expenditure in India is very low compared to many countries. Assumptions to evaluate: I. The enhanced assistance may subst…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The decision to increase external assistance is justified by low per-capita health expenditure. That rationale presupposes insufficiency of domestic resources, but it does not require the stronger claim that the increase will fully close the international gap.Given Data / Assumptions:Decision: Double WHO assistance to India.Reason cited: India’s per-capita health spend is very low compared to many countries.Assumption I: The increase will put India on par with others.Assumption II: Domestic (government) funding is inadequate to meet needs.Concept / Approach:External supplementation implies domestic deficiency or constraints.Parity with other countries is an aspirational end-state, not a prerequisite for deciding to increase aid.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption II is necessary: If domestic funding were adequate, the core reason for increasing external aid would be undermined.Assumption I is unnecessary: Aid can be doubled without expecting immediate parity; any improvement may justify the action.Verification / Alternative check:Drop II: The rationale for aid collapses. Drop I: The decision remains sensible (incremental improvement is still worthwhile).Why Other Options Are Wrong:I / Either / Neither / Both: These impose an outcome (parity) that is not required by the decision logic.Common Pitfalls:Confusing a reason to improve with a guarantee of matching international benchmarks.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 8

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: The President assured the people that elections will be held hereafter every five years. Assumptions to evaluate: I. People fear that elections may not be held at all. II. People fear that elections may no…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Assurances typically target a specific public anxiety. The wording “hereafter every five years” addresses periodicity and timeliness, not the absolute possibility of ever holding elections. We must identify which fear the assurance presupposes.Given Data / Assumptions:Assurance: Elections will occur at five-year intervals going forward.Assumption I: Fear that elections may not be held at all.Assumption II: Fear that elections may not be held regularly after five years.Concept / Approach:The phrase “every five years” directly responds to concerns about schedule/regularity.It does not necessarily respond to an absolute fear of “never any election,” which is a stronger, different concern.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption II is necessary: If people worry about irregular or delayed elections, promising five-year periodicity addresses that precise worry.Assumption I is not necessary: One could believe elections will occur but still worry they won’t be timely. The assurance focuses on timing, not existence per se.Verification / Alternative check:Remove II: The assurance loses its target. Remove I: The assurance still makes sense because people might only doubt regular intervals.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I / Either / Neither / Both: These either misidentify or overstate the addressed fear.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that a promise of periodicity is the same as a promise of basic existence.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 9

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Job interviews should measure personality characteristics of candidates.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Performance on the job depends on personality characteristics. II. Personality characteristics can be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This recommendation concerns what interviews should assess. For the recommendation to be meaningful, two premises must hold: personality matters for job performance, and interviews are a suitable context for assessing it. Without either, the prescription fails.Given Data / Assumptions:Prescription: Measure personality in interviews.Assumption I: Job success depends, at least partly, on personality.Assumption II: Interviews can validly and reliably measure personality traits.Concept / Approach:“Should measure” implies relevance to performance (I) and feasibility of measurement (II).If either fails, the “should” collapses—either it is irrelevant or impractical.Step-by-Step Solution:If I is false, assessing personality is pointless for hiring decisions; thus I is necessary.If II is false, interviews are the wrong tool; the recommendation lacks feasibility; thus II is necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Remove I or II: The policy becomes either irrelevant or unworkable, confirming both are needed.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II, Either, Neither: Each misses a crucial leg (relevance or feasibility).Common Pitfalls:Assuming that because something is measurable elsewhere (e.g., psychometrics), interviews automatically suffice without stating feasibility.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 10

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement on a public notice board at a ticket window: “Please come in queue.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Unless instructed, people will not form a queue. II. People, in any case, want to purchase tickets.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This critical-reasoning item asks which unstated beliefs must hold true for a public instruction—“Please come in queue”—to be meaningful at a ticket window. We assess necessity, not mere possibility.Given Data / Assumptions:A notice instructs customers to form a queue.Assumption I: Without explicit direction, people may not queue.Assumption II: People anyhow want to purchase tickets.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is required for the statement to serve its purpose. If the notice would still make complete sense without an assumption, that assumption is not implicit. Queue instructions typically presuppose a risk of disorder unless rules are stated.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The authority posts the instruction to prevent disorder and manage turn-taking, presupposing people might not line up on their own. So I is necessary.2) Whether the people want tickets is incidental. The notice is addressed to whoever approaches the window. Even if some individuals do not want tickets, the instruction remains sensible. Thus II is not required.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: people always queue without instruction. Then the notice adds no value and is unnecessary—contradicting the motive for posting it. Negate II: not everyone wants to purchase tickets; the notice still makes sense for those who do. Hence only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Neither / Both: These either elevate a nonessential condition (II) or deny the necessary one (I).Common Pitfalls:Confusing audience intent with procedural order. The instruction exists to enforce order, independent of the motives of passersby.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 11

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Principal’s note to parents: “Children who receive encouragement usually perform better.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Some parents do not encourage their children. II. Parents may follow the Principal’s advi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The Principal issues guidance linking encouragement and performance. We must identify the hidden beliefs that make issuing such advice purposeful and reasonable.Given Data / Assumptions:A note promotes parental encouragement.Assumption I: At least some parents currently do not encourage their children.Assumption II: Parents might heed the Principal’s recommendation.Concept / Approach:Advice is typically issued when two conditions hold: there is a gap or problem to address, and there is a reasonable expectation of compliance. Without either, issuing the note loses rationale.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If every parent already encouraged fully, the note would be redundant. Thus I must be true for the note to be needed.2) Advice presumes an audience that might follow it. If parents were sure to ignore the guidance, the effort would be pointless. Hence II is also implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: no gap exists—issuing advice becomes unnecessary. Negate II: no one will follow—issuing advice becomes ineffective. Both negations undercut the statement’s purpose, confirming both assumptions are necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: drops one of the two pillars (need and expected compliance).Either/Neither: fail the necessity test demonstrated above.Common Pitfalls:Equating “may follow” with certainty. Assumptions need a reasonable possibility, not a guarantee.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 12

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Advice from A to B: “According to me, you should get your child examined by a specialist doctor.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Specialist doctors diagnose better than ordinary doctors. II. B will certainly no…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:We analyze the unstated beliefs that make a recommendation to consult a specialist rational. We must test each assumption for necessity, not mere plausibility.Given Data / Assumptions:Recommendation: see a specialist.Assumption I: specialists provide superior diagnostic ability relative to general doctors.Assumption II: B will definitely reject the advice.Concept / Approach:For an advice to see a specialist to be sensible, A must believe a specialist offers added value. The advice does not require any specific reaction from B—acceptance or refusal is separate from the logic of the recommendation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If specialists were not better at diagnosis in relevant cases, A’s suggestion loses force. Thus I is implicit.2) The assertion that B “will certainly not agree” is neither implied nor needed. Advice can be issued without assuming refusal. Hence II is not implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: specialists are no better—then the suggestion is baseless. Negate II: B might agree—advice still stands. Only I is necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They introduce an unnecessary behavioral prediction or deny the clear medical-value premise.Common Pitfalls:Confusing persuasive rationale (value of a specialist) with predicted compliance (B’s response).Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 13

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Policy note: “The government is making efforts to boost tourism in State X.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Tourism in State X dropped following political unrest. II. Special discounts in air fare have been ann…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement merely declares efforts to boost tourism, without specifying causes or tactics. We must decide whether the two proposed assumptions are required for that declaration to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:A general governmental effort to promote tourism in State X.Assumption I: the decline was due to political unrest.Assumption II: airfare discounts have been announced as the measure.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption must be indispensable to the statement. Causes of decline and specific measures are not mentioned; efforts can be justified for growth ambitions, seasonal strategies, new branding, or competition, independent of political unrest or airfare cuts.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The government may promote tourism even without any drop or without political unrest; it might aim at expansion. Therefore I is not necessary.2) The statement does not specify instruments. Efforts could include infrastructure, campaigns, events, visa facilitation, etc. Airfare discounts are just one possibility. II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: no political unrest drop—efforts still make sense. Negate II: no airfare discounts—efforts could be via other tools. Thus neither is implicitly required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Both: They import specifics the statement never depends on.Common Pitfalls:Assuming every policy is reactive. Many promotions are proactive or multi-pronged without a single identifiable cause or tool.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 14

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Personnel Manager’s argument: “The best way to solve workers’ dissatisfaction is cash rewards. This incentive solved the problem in CIDCO Company; therefore it should work here as well.” Assumptions to evalu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This is an analogy-based recommendation: a solution that worked at CIDCO is proposed for another company. We must identify what must be true for the analogy to hold.Given Data / Assumptions:Cash rewards solved dissatisfaction at CIDCO.Assumption I: both companies share similar causes of dissatisfaction.Assumption II: money always works due to universal appeal.Concept / Approach:Analogical arguments require similarity on causal factors. Without similarity, extrapolation is weak. Universality is not required; the argument relies on relevant similarity, not on an absolute rule about money.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If the root causes differ (e.g., safety vs pay), a monetary fix may fail. Therefore I is necessary to generalize from CIDCO to “here.”2) The argument does not require money to have universal appeal; it requires money to address this situation because of similar causes. Thus II is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: causes differ—analogy collapses. Negate II: money is not always effective—analogy can still work if this case matches CIDCO’s cause. Hence only I is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They either overstate the claim (universality) or fail to include the essential similarity condition.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “worked once” with “works everywhere.” Transferability hinges on cause similarity, not universality.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 15

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Notice: “Do not copy our software without our permission.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. It is possible to copy the software. II. Such a warning will have some effect.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Legal/ethical warnings presuppose both feasibility of the prohibited act and some deterrent value of the notice. We test whether each is necessary for the instruction to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Prohibition against copying software without permission.Assumption I: copying is technically feasible.Assumption II: the warning will reduce violations or set grounds for enforcement.Concept / Approach:A prohibition is rational only if the act can occur and notice may influence behavior or provide legal clarity. Otherwise, the notice is redundant or pointless.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If copying were impossible, warning would be unnecessary. Hence I is implicit.2) If warnings never affect conduct or enforcement posture, posting one serves no purpose. Therefore II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: impossible to copy—notice is superfluous. Negate II: warnings have zero effect—the notice is futile. Both negations undercut the rationale, confirming both assumptions are required.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or only II: drops one of the two basic reasons to post a prohibition.Either/Neither: fail necessity.Common Pitfalls:Assuming “effect” means perfect compliance. Even partial deterrence or clearer liability is sufficient to justify the notice.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 16

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Policy statement: “Retired persons should not be appointed to executive posts in other organisations.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Retired persons may lack the zeal and commitment needed for executive work. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A blanket policy against appointing retirees to executive roles implies concerns about suitability. We must decide which concerns the policy necessarily assumes.Given Data / Assumptions:Policy: avoid appointing retired persons to executive posts.Assumption I: possible lack of zeal/commitment among retirees for such roles.Assumption II: retirees do not take interest in the new organization’s work and welfare.Concept / Approach:To justify a “should not” policy, at least one general concern must plausibly apply often enough—such as energy, drive, or adaptability. An absolute claim that retirees do not take interest is extreme and unnecessary.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The most natural rationale for the policy is the belief that, on average, zeal/commitment may be lower post-retirement, affecting executive effectiveness. I is therefore implicit.2) II is an overgeneralization (asserting no interest). The policy does not require such a sweeping claim; it can rest on risk of reduced zeal without asserting total disinterest.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: zeal is fully adequate—then the policy loses ground. Negate II: many retirees do take interest—the policy could still be argued on zeal/commitment concerns, so II is not necessary.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Neither / Both: They either install an unnecessary absolute or deny the core risk premise.Common Pitfalls:Reading policies as if they always rely on universal negatives. Often they rely on probabilistic concerns, not certainties.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 17

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Delegation request: “In my absence, I request you to look after the affairs of our company,” says B to C. Assumptions to evaluate: I. C may not accept B’s request. II. C has the expertise to handle the affai…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:When someone requests another to manage affairs in their absence, what must they believe for the request to be reasonable? We evaluate necessity of the two assumptions.Given Data / Assumptions:Request from B to C to handle company affairs.Assumption I: C might refuse.Assumption II: C is capable and competent to handle the role.Concept / Approach:Issuing a request presupposes that the recipient is able to do the job; otherwise the request is irrational. It does not require any belief that refusal is likely.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If C lacked expertise, asking C to take charge would be unreasonable. Thus II is a necessary assumption.2) Whether C may not accept is not required; the request can be made even if B expects acceptance. Thus I is not necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: C cannot handle affairs—the request is nonsensical. Negate I: C will accept—request still makes sense. Hence only II is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Either / Neither / Both: They either import an unnecessary doubt about acceptance or omit the essential capability assumption.Common Pitfalls:Confusing possibility of refusal with the logic of making the request. Competence is key; acceptance probability is not required.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 18

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Safety announcement in a ropeway trolley: “For your own interest, please fasten your seat belts while seated.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. People are always careful about their own safety. II. Unless advised…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Transport operators issue safety instructions to reduce risk. We test which background beliefs are necessary for the announcement to be purposeful.Given Data / Assumptions:Passengers are advised to fasten seat belts.Assumption I: people are always safety-conscious.Assumption II: without advice, some passengers might not fasten belts.Concept / Approach:A safety announcement presupposes that compliance is not automatic and that guidance can increase safe behavior. It does not require the belief that people are always safety-focused; in fact, the instruction exists precisely because some are not.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The operator anticipates that, absent reminders, some will forget or ignore belts. Hence II is necessary.2) I claims people are always careful, which contradicts the need for reminders. It is not necessary; if it were true, no announcement would be needed.Verification / Alternative check:Negate II: passengers will use belts anyway—the announcement becomes redundant. Negate I: people are not always careful—the announcement still makes sense. Therefore only II is implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Either / Neither / Both: These ignore the practical rationale for safety reminders and misstate the necessity.Common Pitfalls:Reading “in their own interest” as proof that people are always careful. It is persuasive wording, not a logical claim about universal behavior.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 19

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Advertisement claim: “Banking services are fine-tuned to meet growing business needs.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Banking is a part of business activity. II. Industrialists prefer better banking services.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:An advertisement positions banking services as tailored to “growing business needs.” We must extract the necessary beliefs about the relationship between banking and business customers for this pitch to be persuasive.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: banking services align with business requirements.Assumption I: banking functions are integral to business operations (payments, credit, trade services, cash management).Assumption II: business customers (industrialists) value enhanced banking services and will be attracted by such positioning.Concept / Approach:Advertising presupposes relevance and demand: relevance that banking is a key business enabler, and demand that decision-makers prefer better, tuned services. Both are needed; without either, the pitch loses meaning.Step-by-Step Solution:1) If banking were unrelated to business, “fine-tuned to business needs” would be meaningless. So I is necessary.2) The ad banks on desire for improved service; if industrialists did not prefer better banking, the selling point would fail. Hence II is also necessary.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: no link between banking and business—message has no audience. Negate II: industrialists indifferent—message loses persuasive force. Both negations undermine the ad’s logic, confirming both assumptions are implicit.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II: omits one of the two pillars (relevance and desire).Either/Neither: fail the necessity test.Common Pitfalls:Interpreting “industrialists” narrowly. The assumption generalizes to business decision-makers who rely on banking.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 20

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The ‘M’ Cooperative Housing Society has put up a notice at its gate stating that salespersons are not allowed inside the society. Assumptions: I. All salespersons will stay away from the ‘M’ Coope…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem tests your ability to detect necessary, unstated beliefs (implicit assumptions) that make a practical action sensible. A society posts a “salespersons not allowed” notice. What must the society be assuming for this act to have the intended effect?Given Data / Assumptions:Action: A prohibition notice is displayed at the society gate.Assumption I: All salespersons will voluntarily stay away.Assumption II: The gate security can enforce the rule and stop violators.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is required for the action to be effective. A posted rule typically relies on a combination of compliance and enforcement. However, a 100% voluntary compliance claim is too strong; realistic policies also assume some enforcement capability (e.g., a guard who can intercept violators).Step-by-Step Solution:Ask: If II were false (no enforcement at the gate), would the notice deter determined salespersons? Effectiveness would drop drastically, undermining the purpose. Hence II is necessary.Ask: If I were false (not all salespersons stay away), can the notice still work overall? Yes—some may still be deterred by the sign and others by the guard. Therefore I is not required.Verification / Alternative check:Real-world policies combine signage plus security. Rules with zero enforcement are widely ignored; thus enforcement capacity is the operative assumption.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only: Assumes perfect voluntary compliance—unrealistic and not necessary.Either I or II / Both: Overstate the requirement; only enforcement capability is essential.Neither: Incorrect because some enforcement assumption is required.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “helpful” with “necessary.” Voluntary compliance helps but is not required to justify posting the rule; enforcement is the key necessity.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter