Question 1

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The private bus service in the city has virtually collapsed because of the ongoing strike of its employees.” Which assumptions are implicit in this statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement attributes the collapse of a city’s private bus service to an employees’ strike. We must test whether it assumes a right to strike or a lack of public demand for private buses. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Going on strikes has become the right of every employee. II: People no more require the services of private bus operators. Concept / Approach: An assumption is necessary for the statement’s logic. Ask: if a suggested assumption is false, does the original claim lose its force? Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The sentence reports a causal link: strike → service collapse. Whether strikes are a “right” is a normative/legal claim not needed to explain a factual effect. The collapse could occur irrespective of legal rights. Hence I is not necessary.2) II contradicts the statement’s implied reality. If people did not require private buses, the impact of a strike would be minimal, not a “collapse.” The sentence presumes demand exists; II is neither stated nor required.3) Therefore, neither I nor II must be true for the collapse explanation to hold. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the strike is illegal (no right) or perfectly legal (explicit right)—the effect on operations can still be the same. Also, demand for buses can be high; that is why a strike hurts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Both / Either: These import claims not needed to explain the operational breakdown. Common Pitfalls: Do not conflate causes (strike) with judgments about rights (legality) or with demand-side conclusions. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 2

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Neither fascism nor communism has any chance of succeeding in America.” Which assumptions are implicit in this statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker rules out success of fascism and communism in America. We must identify the underlying belief that makes this claim reasonable. Given Data / Assumptions: I: American people are strongly in favour of preserving the rights of the individual. II: Americans have so far not suffered any pangs of poverty or deprivation. Concept / Approach: Evaluate what must be true for both authoritarian (fascism) and collectivist (communism) ideologies to fail in the American context. Use the negation test to check necessity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The rejection of both systems aligns with an assumption of entrenched individual rights and liberal democratic values—this is exactly I.2) Poverty or deprivation (II) might influence political choices, but their absence is not required to predict failure of those ideologies. Even with economic hardship, individual-rights culture could still resist them.3) Negate I: If Americans did not value individual rights, authoritarian or collectivist models might gain traction, weakening the claim. Negate II: Even if poverty exists, the ideological resistance based on rights can still block success. Verification / Alternative check: Historical emphasis on constitutional liberties and checks balances supports I as the crucial premise for the prediction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Both / Either: II is not necessary; combining it with I adds an inessential condition. Neither: Undercuts the ideological basis the claim relies upon. Common Pitfalls: Avoid assuming that economic conditions alone determine ideological outcomes; cultural-political values are central here. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 3

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Among newspapers, I always read the National Times.” Which assumptions are implicit in this personal preference claim?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The speaker expresses a preference: among newspapers, they always read one particular title. We must assess whether this implies anything about comprehensiveness or others’ preferences. Given Data / Assumptions: I: The National Times gives very comprehensive news. II: Some people prefer other newspapers. Concept / Approach: Personal preference statements typically do not require universal claims about quality or about what others prefer. The key is necessity for the statement to make sense. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Negate I: Even if the paper were not “very comprehensive,” the speaker might still read it for style, editorial stance, habit, or local coverage. The preference remains coherent; therefore I is not required.2) Negate II: Even if everyone else also preferred the same paper, the statement “I always read the National Times” still holds. The sentence does not depend on others’ choices.3) Hence, neither assumption is essential to support the preference claim. Verification / Alternative check: Preference claims need no justification beyond the speaker’s habit or taste unless explicitly stated. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II / Either / Both: These add external content (quality judgments or social comparisons) not required by the personal statement. Common Pitfalls: Do not convert a personal habit into a general evaluation of quality or into a claim about the population’s tastes. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 4

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement: “Get rid of your past for future—get our new-generation fridge at a discount in exchange for your old one.” Which assumptions are implicit in the copy?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a marketing message for an “exchange offer” where customers get a discount on a new refrigerator when they surrender an old one. We must uncover the beliefs behind the ad’s persuasion attempt. Given Data / Assumptions: I: The sales of the new fridge may increase in the coming months (i.e., the promotion will boost adoption). II: People prefer to exchange future with past. Concept / Approach: Advertising assumptions usually include that the offer will influence customer behavior. Figurative phrases (“get rid of your past”) should not be over-literalized to bizarre meanings like II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) The ad deploys a trade-in incentive; the underlying belief is that this will spur purchases (I). Without that assumption, the promotion would be pointless.2) II is a misread of the rhetoric. No marketer assumes people literally prefer trading “future with past.” The phrase simply urges upgrading; it does not state human preferences in that absurd form.3) Negating I (“this will not help sales”) undermines the rationale for running the campaign, proving I is necessary. Negating II has no effect on the logic. Verification / Alternative check: Exchange offers are classic sales accelerators; their effectiveness is the campaign’s tacit premise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Both / Either / Neither: Each either misinterprets the copy or denies the obvious sales intent. Common Pitfalls: Do not over-literalize metaphors used in advertising taglines. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 5

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The higher echelons of any organization should be models of observational learning and not be treated merely as sources of reward and punishment.” Which assumptions are implicit here?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is a managerial guideline: leaders should model behaviors employees can learn from, rather than being viewed only as dispensers of carrot and stick. Identify the assumptions that make this recommendation meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Employees are likely to learn by observing the behaviour of their bosses (observational learning happens). II: Normally bosses are considered as sources of reward and punishment (a prevailing perception exists). Concept / Approach: Prescriptive statements often assume both the feasibility of the prescription (I) and the existence of a suboptimal status quo the prescription seeks to change (II). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If employees do not learn by observing leaders, asking leaders to be “models” is pointless. Hence I is necessary.2) The clause “not merely sources of reward and punishment” presumes that this limited perception commonly exists. Otherwise, the caution would be unnecessary. Thus II is also assumed.3) Negate I or II and the advice loses force or context. Verification / Alternative check: Leadership-by-example and social learning theory support the premise that observed behavior shapes norms—validating I. Widespread transactional views of bosses (rewards/punishments) motivate the corrective—validating II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: The guidance relies on both the mechanism of learning and the existing perception it seeks to counterbalance. Either / Neither: Incompatible with the text’s logic. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “not merely” with “never.” The statement recognizes rewards/punishments exist but urges an expanded role-model function. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 6

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The new education policy envisages major modifications in the education system.” Which assumptions are implicit in this policy statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A policy document proposes “major modifications” to the education system. We must identify the assumptions that justify such a large redesign. Given Data / Assumptions: I: The present education system is inconsistent with national needs. II: The present education system needs change. Concept / Approach: Proposals for major change assume that (a) the status quo is misaligned with objectives and (b) change is required. The first provides the rationale; the second states the necessity. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If the current system already satisfied national needs, “major” changes would lack justification. Therefore I is assumed.2) Saying “major modifications” explicitly presupposes that change is needed, not just minor tweaks—validating II.3) Negating either I or II undermines the call for substantial reforms. Verification / Alternative check: Policy reforms are typically framed by a “problem statement” (misalignment) and a “solution need” (change imperative), corresponding to I and II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or only II: Removes either the problem or the need; both are implied in the phrase “major modifications.” Either / Neither: Do not reflect the policy logic. Common Pitfalls: Do not treat “major modifications” as mere routine updates; the wording signals a substantive gap with current needs. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 7

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement: “Fly X Airways whenever you decide to go places. Our fares are less than train fares.” Which assumptions are implicit in the advertiser’s claim?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The ad tries to persuade by price comparison: X Airways fares are lower than train fares. We must identify what belief about consumer behavior or competitors is necessary for this pitch. Given Data / Assumptions: I: People prefer to travel by air when the fares are reasonable (or lower than alternatives). II: The fares of other airlines are costlier than those of X Airways. Concept / Approach: For the comparison to move customers, the advertiser assumes price sensitivity that makes air travel attractive when cheap. The ad compares with trains, not with other airlines; competitor pricing among airlines is not required. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Negate I: If people do not switch just because air is cheaper than train, the message loses persuasive power. Hence I is necessary.2) Negate II: Even if other airlines had similar or lower prices, the claim “cheaper than train” could still motivate switching from rail to air via X Airways; II is not essential for the ad’s effectiveness. Verification / Alternative check: Ads often highlight relative advantage to the dominant alternative (train), assuming consumers respond to monetary savings and convenience. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Both / Either: II concerns intra-airline competition and is not needed for the train comparison to work. Neither: Denies price responsiveness, contradicting basic marketing logic. Common Pitfalls: Do not import competitor claims that the ad never makes; stick to the explicit comparison (air vs train). Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 8

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The programme will start at 6:00 p.m., but you can arrive up to 7:00 p.m. or so and there is still no problem.” Which assumptions are implicit in this scheduling guidance?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Someone provides arrival guidance relative to the program start time. We must identify what must be true for this guidance to be sensible. Given Data / Assumptions: I: The programme will continue even after 7:00 p.m. II: The programme may not even start by that time. Concept / Approach: If late arrival is acceptable, the event must be ongoing past that time. However, this does not imply that the start will be delayed. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) For guests to arrive “up to 7:00 p.m.” without problem, the programme must still be in progress at or after 7:00 p.m. Hence I is necessary.2) II suggests the event may not even start by 7:00 p.m., which is not required. The original sentence clearly states the start time (6:00 p.m.). Accepting late arrivals does not imply a delayed start. Verification / Alternative check: Many events have a punctual start and a long duration; late attendance is permitted without changing the official start time. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Both / Either: These presume a start-time uncertainty that contradicts the explicit “will start at 6 p.m.” Neither: Fails to recognize the obvious duration implication. Common Pitfalls: Do not confuse “arrive by 7” with “starts at 7.” The former concerns tolerance, not scheduling. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 9

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement slogan: “If you want to follow the footprints of an ideal leader, wear ‘X’ brand shoes.” Which assumptions are implicit in this message?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic aspirational ad that links a product to admired traits (ideal leadership). We must identify the beliefs the ad relies on to persuade. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Most people (or many in the target audience) like to become ideal leaders. II: One cannot become an ideal leader unless one wears X brand of shoes. Concept / Approach: Ads typically assume a desire (I) and exaggerate the product’s symbolic association. They do not literally claim the product is a necessary causal condition (II). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) For the slogan to resonate, the audience must aspire to leadership excellence; otherwise, the association would not motivate purchase. Thus I is necessary.2) II is absurdly strong (a necessary condition) and is not implied. The ad suggests alignment with leadership symbolism, not a logical prerequisite for leadership.3) Negating I drains the ad of persuasive force; negating II leaves the ad’s symbolic appeal intact. Verification / Alternative check: Most brand-image ads operate via identification and aspiration, never by stating literal necessities. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Both / Either: These misread hyperbole as a logical requirement. Neither: Undermines the motivational premise central to aspirational marketing. Common Pitfalls: Do not take persuasive metaphors as strict causal claims. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 10

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The improvement in the quality of television (T.V.) programmes will lead to an increase in the sales of T.V. sets.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Television is a good entertainment medium. II. The quality o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem tests the identification of minimum unstated beliefs (assumptions) that make a predictive statement reasonable. The claim links better programme quality to higher T.V. sales, implying a causal pathway through audience appeal and perceived entertainment value. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: If programme quality improves, T.V. sales will rise. Assumption I: T.V. is regarded as a good entertainment medium by the audience. Assumption II: Programme quality has already improved recently. Concept / Approach: An assumption is implicit if the statement relies on it; without it, the statement loses its persuasive or logical force. A prediction about impact of improved quality does not require that the improvement has already occurred; it only requires that people value T.V. as entertainment such that quality drives demand. Step-by-Step Solution: The causal chain is: better programmes → greater viewer interest → higher perceived value of owning a T.V. → increased purchases.This chain presupposes T.V. is a meaningful entertainment medium (Assumption I). If T.V. were not attractive entertainment, better programmes would not materially change sales.Assumption II is not necessary. The statement is conditional (if quality improves) rather than factual (quality has already improved). The prediction can be made irrespective of whether improvement has yet occurred. Verification / Alternative check: Keep I, drop II: The claim still stands as a forward-looking prediction. Keep II, drop I: Even if quality improved, sales would not rise unless people regard T.V. as worthwhile entertainment. Thus I is necessary; II is not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Either / Neither / Both misread the conditional nature of the statement or ignore the entertainment-value premise that drives sales. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a conditional forecast with a report of current facts; assuming that a prediction requires present improvement. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 11

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “With a sense of sincerity, quality teachers can improve society.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Quality teachers are (already) sincere. II. Sincerity in teaching is effective and worthwhile (it pays).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement is prescriptive: it says that when quality teachers act with sincerity, society can improve. We must identify the minimal belief that makes this recommendation sensible, without adding unnecessary claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: Quality teachers, if sincere, can improve society. Assumption I: All quality teachers are already sincere. Assumption II: Sincerity in teaching is an effective factor that leads to better societal outcomes (i.e., it pays). Concept / Approach: A necessary assumption supports the causal or normative link. Here, the link is between sincerity in teaching and societal improvement. The statement does not assert that quality teachers are already sincere; it recommends sincerity as a condition. Step-by-Step Solution: Because the claim hinges on sincerity producing positive outcomes, it requires accepting that sincerity makes a real difference (Assumption II).Assumption I is not necessary; the sentence structure “with a sense of sincerity” implies that sincerity may need to be adopted or strengthened. It does not presuppose that it is already present. Verification / Alternative check: Drop II: The recommendation loses force, as sincerity would not help. Drop I: The recommendation still makes sense because it is conditional—teachers can choose to be sincere. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I or Both add an unnecessary universal claim about teachers already being sincere; Either or Neither ignore the efficacy of sincerity embedded in the advice. Common Pitfalls: Treating a recommended attribute as a currently possessed attribute. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit

Question 12

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: The head of the organization congratulated staff for reducing the deficit and urged them to give their best to attain a more profitable position in future. Assumptions to evaluate: I. Employees may be moti…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a motivation-and-goals scenario. Praising employees and urging continued effort is a classic attempt to reinforce performance and encourage future gains. The necessary assumption supports motivation, not complacency. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: Congratulate staff and urge best efforts toward profit. Assumption I: Such communication can motivate employees to sustain or increase performance. Assumption II: After praise, employees may relax and slow down because the deficit is reduced. Concept / Approach: A communicator intends outcomes. The purpose of praise plus urging is to increase morale and maintain momentum—assumption I underpins this. Assumption II contradicts the intent of the speech and is not required for the action to be sensible. Step-by-Step Solution: The head expects a positive behavioral response to recognition and exhortation—this is Assumption I.Assumption II represents a risk, not a presumed truth; acknowledging the risk is different from assuming it to justify the action. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I: The speech would lack purpose. Remove II: The speech retains purpose; thus II is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Either / Neither / Both fail to capture the motivational basis of the head’s address. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a possible unintended effect (complacency) with the assumption behind a motivational message. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 13

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Money is the root cause of all the problems in a family.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Every problem has some cause. II. There are always some problems in a family.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement attributes causality—indeed, root causality—to money for family problems. To make such a claim coherent, we must accept that problems have causes. Whether every family always has problems is not necessary for the content of the claim. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: For family problems (whenever they exist), money is the fundamental cause. Assumption I: Problems (as a class) have causes; causal explanation is meaningful. Assumption II: Every family always faces some problems. Concept / Approach: A root-cause statement presupposes that a causal structure exists (Assumption I). It does not require that problems are omnipresent; it speaks to causation where problems occur. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I is indispensable: without causation, calling money the root cause would be nonsensical.Assumption II is unnecessary: the claim can stand even if some families have no problems at some times. It only addresses the problems that do occur. Verification / Alternative check: Eliminate I: The claim collapses. Eliminate II: The claim remains meaningful for cases where problems exist. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II, Either, Neither, Both either add an unneeded universality or ignore the causal prerequisite. Common Pitfalls: Reading “all problems” as “there are always problems,” which is a different assertion. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 14

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement: “Our shoes are for the rich.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Many people like to be labelled as rich (aspirational appeal exists). II. One cannot become rich unless one owns this brand of shoes.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Advertising often relies on aspirational identity. By positioning a product as “for the rich,” the ad attempts to attract buyers who desire that identity or status association. Given Data / Assumptions: Message: The shoes are positioned for rich people. Assumption I: Consumers value being seen as rich; status labelling can influence purchase. Assumption II: Owning these shoes is a necessary condition to become rich (an absurd, unnecessary claim). Concept / Approach: Effective positioning assumes a relevant consumer motive—in this case, aspirational status. The ad does not imply causal wealth creation through ownership; it merely associates the product with a segment/status. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I underpins the appeal: without an audience that values the “rich” label, the positioning would not persuade.Assumption II is neither suggested nor required; wealth status is not claimed to be caused by buying shoes. Verification / Alternative check: Drop I: The message loses persuasive power. Drop II: The message remains fully coherent—status association does not require wealth causation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II / Either / Neither / Both introduce an illogical requirement or ignore the role of status aspiration in marketing. Common Pitfalls: Confusing symbolic association with literal, causal claims about wealth. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Question 15

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: Due to violent students' agitation, the state government decides to close all educational institutions for two weeks with immediate effect. Assumptions to evaluate: I. The agitation may subside after two w…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The government’s action is a crisis-management measure aimed at reducing violence. For such a measure to be reasonable, it must be grounded in beliefs about what the closure will achieve in the short term, both temporally and logistically. Given Data / Assumptions: Action: A two-week statewide closure of educational institutions. Assumption I: The agitation is likely to cool down within about two weeks (a temporal expectation). Assumption II: By closing campuses, typical gathering points are removed, disrupting the ability to continue agitation (a logistical expectation). Concept / Approach: Crisis policies are justified by expected outcomes: diffusion of crowds and de-escalation over time. Both a time-based and a place-based rationale support the closure. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Without believing that a two-week pause helps calm tensions, choosing that duration would be arbitrary.Assumption II: The closure targets the primary venues where agitation coalesces; removing access is assumed to hinder momentum. Verification / Alternative check: If either assumption fails—e.g., the agitation persists regardless of time or easily shifts off-campus—the policy’s effectiveness is undermined. Having both provides the coherent rationale for the immediate closure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or Only II ignores one leg of the policy logic. Either / Neither do not reflect the dual expectations behind such emergency measures. Common Pitfalls: Assuming the measure must solve root causes; here it is designed to de-escalate and disrupt organization in the short term. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 16

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The taste of food contributes to the intake of nourishment, which is essential for human survival.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Human beings take food primarily for enjoyment of taste. II. Human beings ex…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement links a sensory attribute (taste) to nutritional intake and, ultimately, survival. It implies a mechanism: palatable taste encourages sufficient intake. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: Taste contributes to nourishment intake. Assumption I: People eat for the enjoyment of taste. Assumption II: People are capable of perceiving taste (taste sensation occurs). Concept / Approach: To claim taste contributes to intake, it must be perceived by eaters; otherwise taste could not influence behavior. However, saying taste contributes does not require that enjoyment is the primary reason for eating; survival, culture, or habit may be primary motives. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption II is necessary: without sensory experience of taste, the proposed contribution to intake is impossible.Assumption I is not necessary: taste can still influence quantity or frequency of eating even when survival or nutrition is the main motivation. Verification / Alternative check: Drop II: The mechanism collapses. Drop I: The statement remains valid; taste may be a secondary but real contributor. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I / Either / Neither / Both either overstate the role of pleasure or ignore the sensory precondition. Common Pitfalls: Equating “contributes” with “is the sole or primary reason.” Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit

Question 17

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “The economic prosperity of any nation is dependent on the quality of its human resources.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. The quality of human resources of a nation can be measured. II. Achieving economic pr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a causal-dependence statement: prosperity depends on human-resource quality. We must test whether the claim requires measurability of quality or universal desire for prosperity. Given Data / Assumptions: Claim: Prosperity depends on human-resource quality. Assumption I: Human-resource quality must be measurable. Assumption II: Every nation cherishes prosperity as a goal. Concept / Approach: A causal relation can be asserted without requiring formal measurability; dependence can exist even if measurement is imperfect or qualitative. The statement is descriptive, not prescriptive; it states what prosperity depends on, not whether nations want prosperity. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I: Not necessary. One can state that X depends on Y without having a precise metric for Y; measurability is useful but not logically required to make the dependency true.Assumption II: Not necessary. The truth of the dependency is independent of whether all nations choose to pursue prosperity. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I and II: The core causal statement remains intact and meaningful. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing I, II, Either, or Both introduces extra claims (measurement or universal goals) that are not required by the dependency claim. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that because something matters, it must be measured; confusing a descriptive claim with a value judgment about goals. Final Answer: Neither I nor II is implicit

Question 18

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement from a Pensioners' Forum: “Two months ago, the Central Government announced dearness relief with immediate effect, but till date banks have not credited the arrears.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Most banks …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The forum complains about a delay despite an “immediate effect” announcement. The implicit belief needed is that the elapsed time should have sufficed for implementation; the complaint does not rely on any general praise or criticism of banks’ usual care. Given Data / Assumptions: Fact claimed: Two months have passed with no arrears credited. Assumption I: Most banks normally care well for pensioners. Assumption II: Two months is enough to operationalize the payout after such an announcement. Concept / Approach: A grievance about delay presupposes a benchmark of reasonable implementation time. The complaint does not require any characterization of banks’ routine behavior toward pensioners. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption II is necessary: Without believing two months is adequate for processing, the grievance would lack force.Assumption I is irrelevant to the argument; the point is the current failure relative to an urgent directive, not banks’ general care level. Verification / Alternative check: Drop II: The complaint weakens because the delay might be reasonable. Drop I: The complaint remains intact. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I, Either, Neither, Both misidentify what the delay-based argument depends on. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a specific procedural delay critique with a broad evaluation of service quality. Final Answer: Only assumption II is implicit

Question 19

Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “If it does not rain throughout this month, most farmers would be in trouble this year.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Timely rainfall is essential for farming success. II. Most farmers are generally depende…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement forecasts widespread farmer distress if there is no rain this month. The logic rests on rainfall being a key input and on most farmers depending on it rather than on assured irrigation. Given Data / Assumptions: Condition: No rain this month. Outcome predicted: Most farmers will be in trouble. Assumption I: Rainfall timing is essential for crop cycles. Assumption II: A majority of farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture. Concept / Approach: A conditional forecast requires that the condition (rain) is causally significant. The aggregate prediction (“most farmers”) requires that reliance on rain is widespread among farmers. Step-by-Step Solution: Assumption I is necessary: without the importance of timely rain, the absence of rain would not broadly harm farming.Assumption II is necessary: if most farmers had irrigation or other substitutes, “most” would not be in trouble. Verification / Alternative check: Remove I: The causal link fails. Remove II: The quantifier “most” is unsupported. With both present, the prediction is coherent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I or Only II under-supports either the causal mechanism or the breadth of impact. Either / Neither miss the dual necessity. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring the quantifier “most,” which demands an assumption about widespread dependence, not just isolated cases. Final Answer: Both I and II are implicit

Question 20

Critical Reasoning — Implicit Assumptions Statement: “Equality of income throughout a community is the essential condition for maximising the total utility which the total income available could confer on the members of that community.” Assumptions …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question evaluates your understanding of implicit assumptions in economic statements about utility and income distribution. The statement claims that perfectly equal income maximizes total utility across a community. We must identify which hidden beliefs must be true for that claim to hold meaningfully. Given Data / Assumptions: Main claim: equality of income is essential for maximizing total utility. Assumption I: transferring income from richer to poorer increases aggregate utility. Assumption II: equal pay for equal work (a labor-compensation norm unrelated to total utility per se). Concept / Approach: Economic utility arguments typically rely on diminishing marginal utility of income: each extra unit of income yields less satisfaction as income rises. Therefore, redistribution from high-income to low-income individuals can raise the sum of utilities. We check each assumption for necessity to the claim about maximizing total utility via equality. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Connect statement to diminishing marginal utility: if an additional rupee yields more utility for the poor than it subtracts from the rich, moving income toward equality raises total utility. This is exactly what Assumption I states in transfer terms.2) Assumption II, “equal pay for equal work,” is a fairness principle in labor markets, not a required premise for the total-utility maximization claim. Equality of income could, in theory, be achieved without any statement about wage norms.3) Therefore, I is necessary, II is not. Verification / Alternative check: Negate I: if transferring from rich to poor did not increase total utility, then full equality would not be utility-maximizing. The original claim collapses. Negate II: the utility claim remains intact without discussing pay norms, so II is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II / Either / Neither / Both: These either inject an unrelated fairness norm or deny the key diminishing-marginal-utility premise. Common Pitfalls: Conflating ethical fairness rules (equal pay) with utility-maximization arguments. The former is normative about work; the latter is consequentialist about welfare totals. Final Answer: Only assumption I is implicit

Statement and Assumption Questions