Question 1

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: “What a fool I am to rely on a trickster like Shaleen!” Assumptions: I. Shaleen is unreliable. II. I am a fool.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The speaker reflects on relying on “a trickster like Shaleen.” Assumption questions ask which unstated beliefs must be true for the statement to make sense. We distinguish between what is presupposed and what is explicitly asserted.Given Data / Assumptions:The speaker labels Shaleen a “trickster.”Assumption I: Shaleen is unreliable.Assumption II: The speaker is a fool.Concept / Approach:Calling someone a “trickster” presupposes unreliability or deceitful behavior. The self-judgment “What a fool I am” is an explicit evaluative statement, not an assumption supporting the claim; rather, it is the claim itself. The necessary, supporting belief is that relying on a trickster is imprudent because the person is unreliable.Step-by-Step Solution:If I were false (Shaleen is actually reliable), the utterance loses force—reliance would not be foolish. Hence I is implicit.II is a conclusion the speaker draws. The statement does not need a separate assumption that “I am a fool”; it asserts that directly. Assumptions are prior beliefs that the statement depends on, not the statement’s own value judgment.Verification / Alternative check:Replace “trickster” with “trusted expert”: the complaint would not make sense. Thus unreliability is the indispensable presupposition.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only: Mistakes the conclusion for an assumption.Either/Both: Include II unnecessarily.Neither: Ignores the presupposed unreliability of Shaleen.Common Pitfalls:Confusing asserted self-criticism with an implicit premise. The premise is about Shaleen’s nature.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 2

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Multinational fast-food chains are opening many “Plus Coffee Shops” with piped modern music in different Indian cities, serving various breakfast snacks with coffee. Assumptions: I. A large number…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Businesses invest in new outlets based on expected demand and customer experience. The statement describes an expansion of coffee shops with ambience features and breakfast offerings. We must infer the beliefs that justify this strategy.Given Data / Assumptions:Action: Opening numerous music-equipped coffee shops serving breakfast snacks.Assumption I: Sufficient repeat customers will support the outlets.Assumption II: Customers value the comfortable, modern environment with coffee and snacks.Concept / Approach:Strategic expansion presupposes both market size (repeat demand) and product–experience fit (people will like the ambience with coffee/snacks). Without either, the rollout becomes commercially irrational.Step-by-Step Solution:If I were false (few customers), the scale of expansion would be hard to justify financially.If II were false (ambience not appreciated), the differentiating proposition fails, weakening the business case for “Plus” shops.Hence both I and II underpin the stated move.Verification / Alternative check:Retail expansion models typically require demand forecasts (repeat visits) and experiential appeal (ambience) to drive dwell time and ticket size.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only or II-only: Each alone is insufficient; both demand and ambience preference are part of the logic.Neither: Ignores basic retail assumptions.Common Pitfalls:Treating ambience as a luxury rather than a driver of footfall and loyalty in café formats.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 3

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Market trends are changing continuously and, with increasing competitiveness, consumers’ demands regarding prices and quality are gradually increasing. Assumptions: I. Previously, consumers did no…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement observes rising consumer expectations amid continuous market change and greater competition. Our goal is to test whether two proposed assumptions are necessary for the observation to hold true.Given Data / Assumptions:Observation: Consumer demands on price and quality are increasing.Assumption I: Earlier, consumers did not care about price/quality.Assumption II: Competitiveness is not favourable to consumers.Concept / Approach:“Increasing” demand does not imply “previously zero” demand. It only indicates a trend upwards from some prior level. Further, greater competition typically benefits consumers (better quality, lower prices), but the statement does not evaluate whether competitiveness is favourable or not; it merely correlates increased competition with rising expectations.Step-by-Step Solution:I is too extreme: rising concern now does not require that there was none before.II introduces a negative value judgment unrelated to the statement's content; the statement does not claim competition hurts consumers.Verification / Alternative check:If both I and II are false, the statement still stands: consumers cared before (but now more), and competition can be favourable while also raising expectations.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any option including I or II misreads the trend statement as an absolute or as an evaluation.Common Pitfalls:Equating “increase” with “from zero”; inferring value judgments where none are stated.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 4

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The school authorities have decided to increase the number of students in each classroom to seventy from the next academic session to bridge the gap between income and expenditure to a large exten…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Administrative decisions aimed at financial balance rely on revenue projections. The school plans to raise class size to increase fee income and thereby reduce the deficit. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for this decision to be sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:Plan: Increase class size to 70 students next session.Objective: Bridge the income–expenditure gap to a large extent.Assumption I: Added fee revenue will materially reduce the gap.Assumption II: Every class will certainly be filled to the new limit immediately.Concept / Approach:A policy to earn more from higher enrollment requires assuming that the incremental fee revenue meaningfully improves finances. However, it need not assume a guaranteed, exact headcount in every section. The plan can still make sense with “enough” additional admissions to meet financial goals even if not every seat is filled to capacity.Step-by-Step Solution:I is necessary: If increased seats do not translate into appreciable fee income, the stated purpose collapses.II is too strong: The decision does not require certainty of full capacity; it requires reasonable expectation of sufficient additional admissions.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I (no fee gain): policy fails. Negate II (not all seats filled): policy may still succeed if enough seats are filled to “a large extent.”Why Other Options Are Wrong:II-only and Both: Overstate the requirement by demanding guaranteed full occupancy.Either/Neither: Ignore the central revenue assumption.Common Pitfalls:Confusing “helpful certainty” with “necessary assumption.” Decisions tolerate uncertainty about exact counts but require revenue relevance.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 5

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The General Administration Department has issued a circular allowing employees to take lunch at any half-hour slot between 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Assumptions: I. Employees may welcome the decisio…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Organizations stagger lunch breaks to maintain continuity of service. The circular introduces flexible lunch slots. We determine which beliefs must hold for this policy to be meaningful and effective.Given Data / Assumptions:Policy: Flexible half-hour lunch slots between 1:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.Assumption I: Employees will distribute themselves across the slots.Assumption II: Staggering will prevent a halt in organizational work.Concept / Approach:For staggering to work, two conditions are necessary: staff actually choose varied slots, and coverage remains sufficient so operations continue. If everyone chose the same slot, the policy's purpose would be defeated.Step-by-Step Solution:If I is false (everyone still eats at one time), staggering fails to achieve continuity.If II is false (work still stops), the policy does not meet its operational objective.Therefore both are implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Common service desks, call centers, and admin offices use staggered breaks precisely to avoid downtime—matching both assumptions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only or II-only: Each alone is insufficient; both employee behavior and service continuity are required.Neither: Ignores the design intent of the policy.Common Pitfalls:Assuming employee behavior will automatically distribute without recognizing it as a necessary premise.Final Answer:Both I and II are implicit

Question 6

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: “Lock your valuables in a cupboard and call everybody a gentleman.” Assumptions: I. Valuables locked in a cupboard cannot be stolen. II. Stealing is a crime.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This aphorism advises taking precautions (secure valuables) while being polite and trusting in speech (“call everybody a gentleman”). The question is which hidden beliefs must be true for the advice to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Advice: Be courteous but protect your belongings.Assumption I: Locked items cannot be stolen.Assumption II: Stealing is a crime.Concept / Approach:The instruction encourages prudence, not absolute safety, and it does not rely on legal definitions. The essence is risk reduction despite outward civility. Thus an assumption of invulnerability (I) or a legal/moral proposition (II) is not necessary for the pragmatic advice.Step-by-Step Solution:I is too strong. Locking reduces risk but does not make theft impossible. The recommendation still makes sense even if theft could occur despite locks.II (stealing is a crime) is a true statement in most jurisdictions, but the advice does not require it. Even if stealing were not legally defined as a crime in a hypothetical world, one might still wish to avoid loss and therefore secure valuables.Verification / Alternative check:The core logic is: be prudent because not everyone is trustworthy. That does not depend on legal categorization or on absolute security.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only and II-only: Each adds an unnecessary premise.Either/Both: Overstate requirements not needed for the maxim to be sensible.Common Pitfalls:Reading “lock” as a guarantee instead of a precaution; importing external legal claims that the advice does not hinge on.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 7

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement (Invitation card): “The function will start at 3:00 p.m. You are requested to take your seats before 3:00 p.m.” Assumptions: I. If invitees are not seated before 3:00 p.m., the function will not st…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Invitations often include a start time and a request to be seated beforehand. We must identify the necessary assumptions behind such messaging.Given Data / Assumptions:Message: Function starts at 3:00 p.m.; please be seated before then.Assumption I: Start is conditional on everyone being seated before 3:00 p.m.Assumption II: Organizers intend to begin on time (3:00 p.m.).Concept / Approach:The request for early seating facilitates a punctual start; it does not imply that the event cannot start if one person is late. The necessary presupposition is that the event is scheduled to start at 3:00 p.m., hence the seating request.Step-by-Step Solution:I is not necessary. The function could still begin on time even if a few seats are filled slightly later; the request simply aims to minimize disruptions.II is necessary. Without the intent to start at 3:00 p.m., asking guests to be seated “before 3:00 p.m.” lacks practical sense.Verification / Alternative check:Negating II (no intention to start at 3) renders the seating request arbitrary, weakening the message’s purpose.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only / Either / Both: Overstate the dependency on complete seating.Neither: Ignores the scheduling intention that motivates the request.Common Pitfalls:Interpreting a courtesy request as a hard precondition for commencement.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 8

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: The two countries have signed a fragile pact, but the vital sovereignty issue remains unresolved. Assumptions: I. The two countries cannot have a permanent peace pact. II. The two countries may be…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Describing a pact as “fragile” while noting an unresolved sovereignty issue signals instability. We must determine which assumption is necessary for this characterization to matter.Given Data / Assumptions:Fact: A pact exists but is fragile.Issue: A vital sovereignty dispute remains unsettled.Assumption I: A permanent peace pact is impossible.Assumption II: Hostilities may resume soon.Concept / Approach:Calling a pact fragile presupposes risk of breakdown, not the impossibility of lasting peace. Thus, the necessary belief is the possibility of renewed hostility, not a categorical “never” on permanence.Step-by-Step Solution:Assumption II aligns with “fragile”: the accord could collapse, leading to renewed tensions.Assumption I overreaches: “cannot have permanent peace” is an absolute claim that is not required to call the current pact fragile.Verification / Alternative check:A fragile bridge may still last if reinforced; fragility signals risk, not impossibility.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only and Both: Commit to an absolute that the statement does not imply.Either/Neither: Fail to capture the clear risk embedded in “fragile.”Common Pitfalls:Confusing “risk of failure” with “certainty of failure.”Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 9

Critical Reasoning – Implicit Assumptions Statement: Government-aided schools should have uniformity in charging various fees. Assumptions: I. The Government's subsidy comes from money collected as taxes from the public. II. While giving subsidy, th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement recommends that government-aided schools maintain uniform fee practices. We must uncover the necessary assumption that makes such a recommendation practical and relevant to policy.Given Data / Assumptions:Recommendation: Have uniformity in fees across government-aided schools.Assumption I: Government subsidies come from taxpayers.Assumption II: The Government, when providing aid, can or may stipulate uniform fee conditions.Concept / Approach:A recommendation directed at government-aided institutions typically presumes that the Government has authority to set conditions as part of the aid framework. The source of government revenue (taxes) may be true but is not necessary to justify the specific call for uniformity; the operative assumption is enforceability through subsidy conditions.Step-by-Step Solution:If II were false (no scope to stipulate uniform conditions), the recommendation would lack practical traction.I is not required: Even if subsidies were hypothetically funded through other means (grants, borrowings), the argument for uniformity via policy conditions would still stand.Verification / Alternative check:Policy levers commonly attach conditions to funding; this is the precise mechanism that enables uniform fee practices.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I-only or Both: Tie the argument to tax funding unnecessarily.Either/Neither: Fail to capture the key enforceability assumption in II.Common Pitfalls:Mistaking a general truth about government revenue for a necessary premise of a specific policy instrument.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 10

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: Sachin's mother instructed him to return home by train if it rains heavily. Assumptions: I. Sachin may not be able to decide for himself if it rains heavily. II. Trains may continue to o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This logical reasoning item tests your ability to detect what must be true for an instruction to make sense. A mother tells Sachin to return by train if there is heavy rain. We must find which hidden assumption(s) are necessary for this advice to be practical and meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:An instruction: “Return by train if it rains heavily.”Assumption I: Sachin cannot decide for himself in case of heavy rain.Assumption II: Trains are expected to run even in heavy rain (or at least more reliably than alternatives).Concept / Approach:An assumption is implicit if the statement relies on it to be reasonable. The instruction is about choosing a safe or reliable mode under specific weather. It does not comment on Sachin’s decision-making ability. It does, however, presuppose that the recommended mode (train) is available/operational when the condition (heavy rain) occurs.Step-by-Step Solution:Identify the purpose: ensure safe, timely return during heavy rain.Test Assumption I by negation: Even if Sachin can decide on his own, a parent may still give guidance. The instruction does not require lack of ability. Hence I is not necessary.Test Assumption II by negation: If trains stopped during heavy rain, advising “take the train” would be pointless. Thus continuity/reliability of trains is required.Therefore, only II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Interpret the advice as a contingency plan. Contingency advice presumes feasibility under the specified condition. Trains must be feasible during heavy rain; otherwise the advice fails.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I is implicit: Incorrect; the instruction does not hinge on Sachin’s incapacity.Either I or II / Both: Overstate what is required; only II is needed.Neither: Incorrect, because some feasibility of trains in heavy rain is necessary.Common Pitfalls:Confusing parental guidance with an implication that the child lacks judgment; and overlooking feasibility assumptions behind practical advice.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 11

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: “Please put more people on the job to make up for the delay.” Assumptions: I. Delay is inevitable in most jobs. II. Adding more people to the task will increase output and help recover t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The manager’s request aims to accelerate progress by increasing staffing. The question asks which assumptions are necessary for this request to be a reasonable plan for recovering from delay.Given Data / Assumptions:A delay has occurred; the speaker seeks to “make up for” it.Assumption I: Delays are inevitable in most jobs (a general claim).Assumption II: More people will raise throughput so that lost time can be recovered.Concept / Approach:An implicit assumption is one without which the directive collapses. The request presupposes that increasing team size improves output (at least in the short term and for this work). It does not require a general belief that delays are inevitable in most jobs.Step-by-Step Solution:Focus on causality: more people → higher output → schedule recovery.Negate II: If adding people does not improve productivity (or causes coordination overhead that cancels gains), the request is ineffective. Thus II is necessary.Negate I: Whether delays are “inevitable” broadly is irrelevant. The current project has a delay; action is proposed regardless of general philosophy about delays. Hence I is not required.Therefore, only II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:In project management, schedule compression (e.g., crashing) assumes resource addition yields more output. That is the enabling assumption for the directive.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Either / Both: These import an unnecessary generalization about delays.Neither: Fails to recognize the productivity premise behind the request.Common Pitfalls:Equating a situational remedy with a broad belief about inevitability of delays; ignoring resource–throughput linkage.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 12

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: Despite less-than-normal rainfall in the lakes’ catchments during the first two monsoon months, the water authority has not imposed any cut in the city’s water supply. Assumptions: I. Ra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Authorities are maintaining normal water supply despite subnormal rainfall early in the monsoon. We must identify which minimal beliefs justify this decision. Such questions examine how decisions depend on alternative sufficient reasons.Given Data / Assumptions:Fact: Early monsoon rainfall is less than normal.Decision: No water cuts yet.Assumption I: Future rainfall may compensate.Assumption II: Existing storage may already suffice.Concept / Approach:When a decision can be rationalized by one of two independent possibilities, the test answer is typically “either I or II.” The authority could be banking on improved future inflows, or on adequate present storage. The decision does not require both simultaneously, only at least one to be plausible.Step-by-Step Solution:Link decision to sufficiency: maintain supply → expect adequacy from either future rain or current storage.Negate I and keep II: If no hope for future rain but storage is ample, the decision remains reasonable.Negate II and keep I: If current storage is tight but future rain is likely adequate, the decision also remains reasonable.Hence, either I or II is implicit; neither alone is mandatory, but at least one must be believed.Verification / Alternative check:Authorities often set trigger levels based on storage and forecast. If either indicator is favorable, cuts are deferred. This reflects a standard water-resource management rationale.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Both: Overstate what is required; both are not simultaneously necessary.Neither: Ignores that some reason must exist to justify the “no cut” stance.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that early deficit must instantly lead to cuts; overlooking role of storage buffers and forecast-based planning.Final Answer:Either I or II is implicit

Question 13

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you. Assumptions: I. We need an engineer for the role. II. You are an engineer.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This statement is a conditional offer: “If you are an engineer, we have a challenging job for you.” The task is to identify the minimal assumption(s) needed for such a conditional recruitment message to be sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:An organization is offering a challenging job contingent on the listener being an engineer.Assumption I: The role requires an engineer (need for that qualification).Assumption II: The specific listener is indeed an engineer.Concept / Approach:Conditionals do not assume the antecedent is true; they merely state what happens if it is. Therefore, the statement does not presuppose that “you are an engineer.” It does presuppose that the organization actually needs an engineer; otherwise the conditional would be pointless.Step-by-Step Solution:Parse the conditional: If (you are an engineer) → then (we have a job for you).Negate I: If there is no need for an engineer, the conditional makes no sense; thus I is necessary.Negate II: The conditional still stands even if the listener is not an engineer; it merely does not apply. II is not necessary.Therefore, only I is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Recruitment ads routinely target qualifications without assuming the candidate already meets them. The requirement (need for an engineer) underpins the statement.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Both: Misread the conditional as presupposing the antecedent.Neither: Ignores the organization’s need that motivates the offer.Common Pitfalls:Confusing conditional applicability with assumed truth of the condition.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 14

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: In spite of poor services, the commuters have not complained. Assumptions: I. Generally, people do not tolerate poor services (so complaints would be expected). II. Complaints sometimes …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The sentence highlights a surprising observation: even though services are poor, commuters have not complained. The word “in spite of” signals that complaints were expected. We must find which assumption makes this expectation sensible.Given Data / Assumptions:Observed fact: Services are poor; no complaints were made.Assumption I: People normally do not tolerate poor service and would complain.Assumption II: Complaints sometimes improve services.Concept / Approach:To label the lack of complaints as notable, the speaker must assume complaints are the typical or reasonable reaction to poor service. That aligns with Assumption I. Whether complaints improve services (Assumption II) is not required to state the contrast; the statement does not discuss outcomes of complaining.Step-by-Step Solution:Interpret “in spite of”: indicates an expectation being defeated.Expectation source: general tendency to complain when service quality is poor → requires I.Assess II: The statement is descriptive (about complaining), not prescriptive (about improvements). Improvement is irrelevant to the observed lack of complaints.Hence, only I is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I: If people typically accept poor service silently, then there would be nothing remarkable; “in spite of” would lose force. Thus I is necessary; II is not.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Both: They assume an outcome of complaints that the statement does not mention.Neither: Misses the expectation embedded by “in spite of.”Common Pitfalls:Projecting policy effects (complaints improve services) onto a statement that merely contrasts behavior with quality.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 15

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: In Mumbai (Bombay), railway trains are indispensable for suburban residents to reach their workplaces on time. Assumptions: I. Railway trains are the only transport mode available in the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The claim is that suburban trains are indispensable for commuters to reach work on time. “Indispensable” means necessary or practically unavoidable. We must determine whether this statement commits to exclusivity of mode or to trains being the only punctual option.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Trains are indispensable for timely commuting in Mumbai suburbs.Assumption I: Trains are the only available mode (exclusivity of availability).Assumption II: Only trains are punctual (exclusivity of punctuality).Concept / Approach:Indispensable does not mean “only available” or “only punctual.” It means other available modes are, in practice, insufficient to guarantee timeliness (due to congestion, cost, reliability, or capacity). The statement does not require trains to be the sole mode nor the sole punctual service, just that alternatives are not adequate substitutes.Step-by-Step Solution:Negate I: Even with buses, autos, taxis available, trains can remain indispensable if alternatives cannot move commuters fast enough at peak hours.Negate II: It could be that some buses are punctual, but capacity, speed, or coverage still make trains necessary for the majority.Therefore, neither I nor II is logically required.Verification / Alternative check:Consider practical commuting: multiple modes exist, yet only trains can handle huge peak-hour loads efficiently. This supports indispensability without exclusivity claims.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Either / Both: Each injects an unnecessary exclusivity condition not entailed by “indispensable.”Common Pitfalls:Equating “indispensable” with “only”; overlooking factors like capacity and speed that make one mode necessary even when others exist.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 16

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: The government has decided to reduce its subsidy on LPG, while keeping the subsidy on kerosene unchanged. Assumptions: I. Households that purchase LPG can afford to pay a higher price. I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Public finance decisions about subsidies rest on judgments about affordability and equity. Here the state lowers LPG subsidy but keeps kerosene subsidy. We must identify which assumption underlies this policy choice.Given Data / Assumptions:Policy: Reduce LPG subsidy; kerosene subsidy unchanged.Assumption I: LPG users can bear higher prices (greater ability to pay).Assumption II: Many users will shift from LPG to kerosene if LPG becomes costlier.Concept / Approach:Maintaining kerosene subsidy while reducing LPG support suggests an equity lens: protect relatively poorer kerosene users while expecting LPG buyers to absorb more cost. The decision does not require predicting a mass shift to kerosene; in fact, that would conflict with clean-fuel goals.Step-by-Step Solution:Connect policy to affordability: the move is sensible only if LPG households are considered more price-resilient → supports I.Evaluate II: A large-scale switch to kerosene is not necessary for the decision and may be undesirable; the statement does not rely on such a prediction.Hence, only I is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Negate I (LPG users cannot afford higher price): the policy would be regressive and hard to justify. Negate II: Even if few switch, the affordability rationale still supports the decision.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Both: Introduce a speculative demand shift not required by the policy logic.Neither: Ignores the affordability basis.Common Pitfalls:Assuming that any price hike must forecast mass substitution; policy can target fiscal savings while trusting affordability among certain user segments.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 17

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: It is not true that the mightiest superpower always wins wars and receives accolades from other countries. Assumptions: I. Winners are sometimes admired and appreciated. II. Winners are …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement denies an absolute claim about a superpower “always” winning wars and “always” getting accolades. Our task is to find which minimal assumption must hold for this denial to make sense.Given Data / Assumptions:Denial: The conjunction “always wins and always gets accolades” is not universally true.Assumption I: Winners are sometimes admired. (A truism but not required.)Assumption II: Winners are sometimes not admired; they may be criticized or denied accolades.Concept / Approach:To refute “always wins and gets accolades,” it is enough that there exist cases where a superpower does not win or, even if it wins, does not receive accolades. The necessary assumption concerns the possibility of non-accolades despite victory, not the existence of admiration per se.Step-by-Step Solution:Interpret “not always” as “there are exceptions.”Relate to accolades: for the refutation to be meaningful, it must be possible that a victor is criticized or not praised → aligns with II.Assumption I merely states the obvious (winners sometimes are admired), which is not required to negate “always.”Therefore, only II is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:If at least on some occasions winners are criticized or not celebrated, then the “always gets accolades” clause fails. The statement stands without any commitment to how often winners are admired.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Either / Both: These include an unnecessary statement about admiration.Neither: Overlooks the exception-based logic needed to defeat “always.”Common Pitfalls:Assuming that to deny “always” one must discuss both praise and criticism; actually, showing the possibility of criticism suffices.Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit

Question 18

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: To investigate the murder of the lone resident of a flat, the police interrogated the domestic servant, the watchman of the multi-storeyed building, and the liftman. Assumptions: I. Thes…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Police begin an investigation by questioning people with proximity: servant, watchman, liftman. We must determine which assumption is necessary for this initial step.Given Data / Assumptions:Action: Interrogation of nearby or familiar personnel.Assumption I: These people might have noticed suspicious activity or have relevant information.Assumption II: Typically, someone known to the victim is involved in such crimes.Concept / Approach:Investigative practice starts by interviewing those with access or observation potential. This requires assuming they can provide clues, not necessarily that acquaintances are generally perpetrators. The latter is a broader criminological claim and not required to justify these interviews.Step-by-Step Solution:Link action to purpose: questioning → obtain leads.Negate I: If these individuals could not possibly provide clues, interrogating them would be pointless; the action would not be justified.Negate II: Even if crimes are often committed by outsiders, it still makes sense to question those who might have seen or know access patterns.Hence, only I is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:Standard operating procedure interviews potential witnesses regardless of general statistics about offender familiarity.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Both: Add an unnecessary generalization about offender identity.Neither: Ignores the informational rationale for questioning.Common Pitfalls:Confusing witness-proximity logic with claims about who typically commits such crimes.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 19

Critical reasoning — identify implicit assumptions  Statement: The integrated steel plants in India will no longer have to depend on imports for continuous casting refractories. Assumptions: I. Continuous casting refractories are required by Indian …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement asserts that imports for a specific input—continuous casting refractories—will no longer be needed by integrated steel plants in India. We must determine the minimal assumption(s) that make this assertion meaningful.Given Data / Assumptions:Claim: Dependence on imports for continuous casting refractories will end.Assumption I: Such refractories are in fact required by Indian steel plants.Assumption II: There is notable market demand for these refractories.Concept / Approach:Ending “dependence” presupposes a need; if there were no requirement, there would be nothing to depend on. However, the claim does not require that demand be large or “significant” in a market sense—mere necessity for operations suffices.Step-by-Step Solution:Negate I: If plants did not need these refractories, the statement about no longer depending on imports becomes vacuous. Thus I is necessary.Negate II: Even if overall demand volume is small, the claim can still be true (domestic supply can cover it). Therefore II is not required.Hence, only I is implicit.Verification / Alternative check:“No longer depend on imports” typically indicates new domestic capability. That rests on existence of need, not on the size of the market.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II / Either / Both: Import unnecessary market-intensity assumptions.Neither: Overlooks the basic necessity presupposed by “dependence.”Common Pitfalls:Conflating operational necessity with market magnitude; assuming the statement comments on demand size rather than supply source.Final Answer:Only assumption I is implicit

Question 20

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The office building needs repairing just as urgently as it needs internal as well as external painting.” Which of the following assumptions are implicit in the above statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This verbal reasoning problem tests your ability to detect unstated assumptions. The speaker asserts that repairing the office building is as urgent as painting it (inside and outside). We must decide whether the statement depends on claims about employee efficiency or about funding.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Efficiency of people working in the office cannot be improved unless the office building is repaired.II: Repairing and painting of the office building require funds.Concept / Approach:An assumption is a statement that must be true for the original claim to hold. Use the negation test: if negating an option does not weaken the original statement, that option is not an assumption.Step-by-Step Solution:1) The original statement compares urgency between two maintenance activities: repairing and painting. It does not claim anything about productivity or efficiency outcomes.2) Negate I: Suppose employee efficiency can improve even without repairs. The original statement, which merely ranks the urgency of two tasks, still stands. Hence I is not required.3) Consider II: While it is practically true that repairs and painting need money, the speaker’s point about urgency does not hinge on budget details. Even if funds were donated or already allocated, the urgency comparison remains valid.4) Therefore, neither I nor II is a necessary underpinning for the claim that both tasks are equally urgent.Verification / Alternative check:If the sentence were rephrased as “allocate money urgently,” funding would become central. But here the focus is pure urgency, not finance or efficiency metrics.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I / Only II / Both / Either: Each introduces extra claims (productivity or finance) not required by an urgency comparison.Common Pitfalls:Do not smuggle in typical project-management considerations (budget, productivity) unless the sentence references them. Urgency comparisons are value judgments independent of those specifics.Final Answer:Neither I nor II is implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions

Questions

Practice smarter