Discussion :: Statement and Assumption - Section 1 (Q.No.46)
In each question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement.
- (A) If only assumption I is implicit
- (B) If only assumption II is implicit
- (C) If either I or II is implicit
- (D) If neither I nor II is implicit
- (E) If both I and II are implicit.
|Rayan said: (Oct 3, 2012)|
|The statement does not indicate that people in rural areas are getting low-grade liquor it just says that food poisoning cases due to consumption of liquor are increasing not spurious liquor.|
|Valli said: (Jul 5, 2013)|
|Yes. Nowhere in the statement there is a mention for rural areas getting low-grade liquor.
As far as I believe Statement1 is implicit.
|Nobody said: (Dec 20, 2013)|
|Neither assumption 1 or 2 are implicit. The percentage of people consuming liquor doesn't need to be higher, the quality can be worse. Also there's nothing in the statement that indicates that the liquor is bought in the same rural areas.|
|Shikhar Dhami said: (May 31, 2014)|
|The statement doesn't imply anything about spurious liquor it only states about the liquor and the liquor can be either spurious or even the moderate ones therefore both options I and II has to be true or otherwise the question is incomplete and must mention about the grading of liquor in the statement.|
|Eli said: (Oct 6, 2014)|
|I. Is not implicit because it could be the same number of drinkers but the quality of liquor has gone down.
I also agree that II is not implicit, although this one is dubious. It is implicit if several other assumptions are also made (as others have pointed out). While they may be reasonable assumptions to make, it does not mean that II is reasonable. This is similar to the murders question. Just because all evidence points to Jane, and she even confessed, doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume she did it.
|Nivi said: (Sep 3, 2015)|
|Nowhere has it mentioned that the liquor sold is unauthorized. It might be authorized and still cause food poisoning. And since they say that the number of cases has increased, it can either mean that there is an increase in the number of people who are consuming, or more quantity is purchased by the same number of people.
According to the given information and conclusions, I is relevant.
|Heet said: (Dec 19, 2015)|
|I also agree that neither I nor II is the implicit because there is no such mention in the question that the people are getting low grade liquor and nor there is mention about the comparison.|
|Gunjan Chopra said: (May 30, 2016)|
|I can't understand this. Please explain the answer simply.|
|Smoker said: (Mar 15, 2017)|
|Answer is D.
Assumption 1.Percentage of people consuming liquor is more in rural areas.
Explanation: Cases of food poisoning due to consumption of liquor are increasing in rural areas." Percentage of people consuming liquor is more" does not imply that the rural areas has more percentage of consumption comparatively. So, this is not implicit.
Assumption II: There are many unauthorized spurious liquor shops in the rural areas. Nowhere in the statement, we see about liquor shops.
|Chitra said: (Apr 8, 2017)|
|According to me, the Answer is D.|
|Saksham Jain said: (Jul 14, 2019)|
|I think the answer should be 'A'.|
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.