Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

Both assumptions are implicit and (E) should be correct.

Some people in the comments are arguing that humans can reduce natural phenomena so the explanation provided is wrong, and thus Assumption 1 is not implicit.

First, I have to make it clear that their reasons fail to support their argument. While I agree that the provided logic is flawed, the assumption itself is not wrong. They fell into this rabbit hole because of the flawed logic in the given explanation. Human's capability to reduce natural phenomena is NOT RELEVANT to the idea that social inequality is man-made. Humans' capability to eradicate diseases or locust swarms has nothing to do with acknowledging that inequality in our society is man-made. Diseases (disease-causing germs, to be specific) and locusts are living beings that are naturally and physically present in the universe.

Inequality is a concept that people decide to use in defining a particular social interaction. You must understand this difference before trying to understand why Assumption 1 is implicit.

The first assumption is implicit because inequality is a consequence of human behaviour. Social inequality is a concept, an idea, that HUMANS CAME UP WITH to describe phenomena observed in humans. It is a belief that humans think there is, whenever they are treated unjustly to their standard. Notice the difference in the perception of inequality among people. Some might believe that feeding the homeless is inequality because they are getting free food without any effort. Some will think otherwise. This subjectivity is present because everyone formulates their concept of inequality, a completely man-made belief. To eradicate this concept, the belief of "inequality" in humans must be altered by the actions of a human body, such as the government. Simply put, "inequality" is a man-made concept in itself, thus the original statement implies Assumption 1.

Lastly, if eradication of inequality requires action by governments, it means that people need external pressure to change their behaviour. The original statement suggests that inequality won't be reduced without the government's support, implying that the people are not willing to give up their possessions unless the government forces them. With this in mind, Assumption 2 is also implicit in the original statement.

Neither is implicit - just because inequality can be reduced, does not mean it is man made (eg people living in one area may be living on ground with excess natural vegetation whereas those living away do not - natural example of inequality that government can fix by forcing those people to share resources).

II - also not implicit - only thing implicit is that people have not yet parted with what they posses. People donate money, don't they?

Both statements are implicit will be correct because it is said that action of government Or revolutionary change, both of them can be done by man so inequality is also created by man purily based on assumptions given.

Government has to take action because people won't give up by themselves if they would then there was no need for any action to be taken so 2nd is also implicit.

It should be E(both implicit) as government is to be involved since no one will voluntarily part with his or her belongings.

Effect to cause plugin s, i.e testing the statement backwards in conditional sentences is what we note here.

Flawed logic diseases can be reduced if not utterly eradicated. That doesn't mean diseases are man-made.

Logic is flawed. Population of locusts can be reduced my man. Doesn't mean that man created locust.

But there is nowhere mentioned that it is man-made or natural. So the correct option should be D.

But nothing is mentioned that Inequality is created by Man or Nature.