Discussion :: Statement and Assumption - Section 3 (Q.No.41)
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.
|Amol Joshi said: (May 31, 2011)|
|If at all there is a security guard at the gate of the society, there is no need of putting a notice at the gate. I think the answer is option A. How can we directly assume II ?? The presence/absence of the guard is not clearly mentioned in the statement .|
|Apdz said: (Jul 2, 2011)|
|I agree with Amol, that there is no mention of security guard. But also, just because there is a notice put on the gate may not neccessarily keep "all the sales persons" away... some may still come despite the notice, so wouldnt D be a better answer?|
|Ramesh said: (Aug 23, 2011)|
|The basic assumption putting a notice at the gate is to that sales persons are not allowed. Thus assumption I is the better answer.|
|Anand said: (Sep 12, 2011)|
|Agreeing with what apdz said, despite of the notice, salesmen ll try to b inside the socity, nd simply a notice cnt compell then to set back and also presence of security guard is not mentioned at ol, so still I think d s the better soln to go for.|
|Awat said: (Sep 22, 2011)|
|The word "those" does not clarify the sentence, as it means some particular. So, how option I works for "all". Neither II as the sales person are literate & can read the notice mentioning "those" ain't allowed.|
|Shreya said: (Nov 17, 2011)|
|If there is already a notice put up at the gate, why is there any question of security guards to keep away the sales man. The answer is confusing !|
|Nitin Killekar said: (Sep 30, 2012)|
|In-spite of all this comments how can administrator of this site stays silent. He/she should immediately the corrected answer on the site or should explain how they deduced "SECURITY GUARD" when its not at all mentioned in the statement.|
|Pan said: (Dec 8, 2012)|
|ALL the sales person will not stay away. Some might find a way to trick the guard. Therefor answer A does not follow.
The guard MAY be able to stop the salesman. Or maybe he will not. How can "putting up a notice" have any impact on the guards ability to stop salesmen or not? therefor answer B does not follow.
|Richa said: (Dec 23, 2012)|
|Here in question THOSE word is used. It means talk is about some salesmen whom they know so B should be answer.|
|Sujit said: (Jan 3, 2013)|
|A watch man placed at the gate does not follow from the given statement as it is not at all mentioned here. This contradicts your explanation given in one of the previous questions, the one with the vegetable.|
|Ravi said: (Jan 5, 2014)|
|At least you need to specify that there is a guard.|
|Vinay said: (Mar 2, 2014)|
|Acc. to me answer is neither 1 nor 2 as in statement its written 'THOSE' means we not 'ALL' and no security guard is mentioned.|
|Oscar said: (Mar 13, 2014)|
|If you had a stack of money in a field, with no one guarding it but there was a sign saying not to take it you would still take if their was no one around. This means that the salespeople would still go near the establishment even if there was a sign saying they couldn't, thus the need for a guard to stop them from doing so.|
|Law Aspirant said: (May 4, 2014)|
|Answer is A, nothing is, mentioned about security guard, so we can predict as guard is helpful !|
|Sanjay Narvariya said: (Aug 3, 2014)|
|'Those sales person' implies to a particular group of sales person.|
|Abhishek said: (Aug 23, 2014)|
|The statement does not mention any 'security guard'. There may be more than one security guard, CCTV cameras, trained dogs, robots, whatever! How can we jump to a security guard conclusion.|
|Somnath Dutta said: (Sep 14, 2014)|
|There is nothing mentioned about the security guard so how can we jump to the conclusion that the decision has been made by the security guard.|
|Rajesh said: (Dec 19, 2014)|
|In my opinion, option B (Only Statement II is implicit) is correct.
Consider this instance:
The M Co-operative society might have employed huge sales workforce, out of them, they wanted to restrict the entry for some of the Salesman. Now in practical sense, just by seeing the notice/by overseeing the notice, such sales person may not stop entering the premises.
So to avoid them, a security guard may do the needful. Since Security Guard is also human, he cannot remember each and everyone whom to be stopped, so the notice will help (Also in practicality, security guard may get changed often since they are contract employees).
Since, 'Assumption I' states, " 'All the sales persons' will stay away from the 'M' Cooperative Housing Society", the assumption is contradicting the statement wherein it is specific to restrict some of the sales staff where as 'Assumption I' says to restrict all sales staff, it is not implicit. Other views are solicited.
|Aditi said: (Mar 11, 2015)|
|There has been no mention of a guard hence we cannot assume that there will be a guard in the first place let alone him stopping the salespersons. According to me only assumption I is implicit.|
|Friend said: (Jul 31, 2015)|
|Assumption ii is implicit for assuming sales people might try to enter the society (and security guard may stop them). So how is assumption I implicit as well for assuming that all sales people will stay away?|
|Mridul Goel said: (Aug 1, 2015)|
|There are two scenarios to the above question:
1) After Reading the Board, all the walkin salesman will be stay away.
2) Society Guard will be able to send back the walkin salesman who in any case try to get into the society.
But what about those salesman who have come with an appointment. The sentence no where mentions in particular the kind of salesman.
|Madhukiran Sullia said: (Sep 7, 2015)|
|I think being a salesman, the person will not stay away from the society definitely he will try to enter. So the watchman should send him away. Please clarify!|
|Debargha said: (Sep 14, 2015)|
|"Security guard" is not mentioned in the statement. If there is a security guard in the gate then why should one put up a notice on the gate? A is the right answer.|
|Junaid said: (Sep 16, 2015)|
|I thought by attending this test I will increase my logical reasoning, but its making me down.
D is the correct answer. Security guard posted at the gate to stop those sales man, might me he has the list whom to send inside and whom to stop. Assumptions are made based on Indian thoughts for most of the q.
|Rivan said: (Oct 2, 2015)|
|Correct answer is B, as assumption I cannot be an implicit assumption because:
- The notice might not be noticed by all the sales persons (involuntarily).
- Some sales persons may be visually impaired.
- "Those sales persons" in the statement suggest that some sales persons only are not allowed inside the society, not all etc.
PS: For those who do not understand why the 'security guard' assumption is implicit: The security guard doesn't have to be mentioned in the statement, but if we assume there is a security guard posted at the gate, based on the notice, the security guard can stop the sales persons entering the society.
|Vinod said: (Mar 14, 2016)|
|I agree with Richa (Sun, Dec 23, 2012 09:47:53 AM). The word "Those" in the question implies that it is applicable for some Sales person.|
|Chandresh Patel said: (Apr 15, 2016)|
|There is no mention of a security guard in a question then how can we assume the security guard will be there to stop them?
Some salesmen are an asshole and they would try to enter in spite of notice.
Overall scenario depends on individual thinking and how can we device who is right and who is wrong!
|Hing said: (Apr 17, 2016)|
|If we assume sales would stay away from the building, why they need the notice, I is not correct assumption; II is valid only if 'security guard' is replaced with notice'. So it must be D.|
|Daarina said: (May 18, 2016)|
|Why would they need a sign or notice if the salespeople stayed away?|
|Pooja said: (May 26, 2016)|
|I Agree with @Richa.
The word "those" implies specific people only and therefore assuming "all salespersons" will stay away is not correct.
|Jandy said: (Jun 12, 2016)|
|We were talking about the post. Where did the guard came from?|
|Abhinaba said: (Aug 31, 2016)|
|"At its gate THOSE sales persons" as it has been mentioned those, it shows that only certain salesman are not allowed which will be done by the guard. So II is correct.|
|Anushka said: (Oct 11, 2016)|
|The answer must be D. The word 'those' implies that this notice is directed toward some specific salespeople and not all. Thus, i) is not implicit. And I have absolutely no clue from where a security guard came into the picture or even if he is present, he may be able to ward off salespersons. So ii) is also not implicit. The answer to me seems to be that neither are implicit, that is D.|
|Ravvi Prasad said: (Oct 14, 2016)|
|As II is "The security guard posted at the gate [MAY BE] able to stop the sales persons entering the society".
Concentrate on may be, So can't this one may be implicit?
|Himanshi R said: (Dec 6, 2016)|
|Answer should be either assumption 1 or 2 or strictly assumption 1.
You simply cannot assume anything, that there is a security guard and even if you are assuming then there is no point to put any notice.
|James said: (Feb 10, 2017)|
|Answer should be [B]. Only assumption II is implicit.
The word "those sales person" only pertains to a number of sales people. If "those" was replaced by "that" then I agree both statements are correct.
|Divya said: (Feb 16, 2017)|
|The statement involves those salesmen and not all salesman indicating only particular salesmen are not allowed but others are allowed thus option 1 is not implicit.|
|Shubham said: (Jun 16, 2017)|
|I think, it will be easy for a security guard posted at gate to convince the salespersons to not to enterb the gate by showing them the board. Therefore both assumptions are implicit.|
|Yashasvi Singhal said: (Jul 26, 2017)|
|A notice is not at all a guarantee for debarring all the salespersons, so I does not follow at all.|
|Souvik said: (Aug 26, 2017)|
|I think the answer should've been 'D' (none) as there is a list for some specific salesman, not all. But the answer is stating "all".|
|Ankit Kothari said: (Sep 8, 2017)|
|But the statement does not talk about the security guard so how does the statement 2 follows?|
|Christian Nielsen said: (Mar 1, 2018)|
|A sign posted does not follow that the sales people will stay away, only that they are kept from entering. There are also no assurances that a security guard could keep them away.|
|Kevin said: (Oct 29, 2019)|
|The use of "implicit" I'm seeing in this test seems unnatural to me. Statement: M corporation has put up a sign on its fence. Implicit assumption: There is a corporation called M corporation. They own a fence. They have an owner or employee or subcontractor to put up a sign on it. They are on a planet that has gravity.
Inferences: They need some way to hold the sign up on the fence, or it will fall down. But this test is calling that an "implicit assumption" I think. The explanation might say "It follows that they would have some way to hold the sign on the fence".
So maybe the question is referring to inferences the listener might make without quibbling or rejecting the statement, rather than assumptions that must be necessary in order for the statement to be meaningful (which I would naturally conceive of as "implicit assumptions".)
So if I want the job I shall have to adjust my concept of "implicit assumptions" for this kind of exercise. It seems to be a test to hire underlings, not to hire managers or someone to be in control.
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.