Discussion :: Statement and Assumption - Section 4 (Q.No.9)
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.
|Abhimanyu said: (Jun 5, 2011)|
|Second statement is also implicit as generally the person is known to the resident as no person with target of robbery will kill the resident.|
|Anvisha said: (May 12, 2012)|
|I agree with abhimanyu.|
|Prem said: (Jun 18, 2012)|
|I also agree with Abhimanyu.
I mean why would one kill anybody even without knowing him, people kill anybody they know, Everybody knows even his enemy they are willing to kill, In most of the cases people knew either the person who killed them or the person who payed to kill them, sometimes they knew to both.
You assume yourself on the place of murderer, would you kill anybody random you don't know or would you like to kill somebody who is one of your enemies.
|Pan said: (Dec 8, 2012)|
|The domestic servant, watchman and the lift-man can give a clue about the suspected murder.
They can give a clue only if the have a clue. If they do not have a clue they cannot give one. The answer that actually follows is this.
"The domestic servant, watchman and the lift-man MIGHT give a clue about the suspected murder ".
|Kolliparajayaram said: (Feb 25, 2013)|
|Yes assumption II is implicit a police first suspects the neighbors because they are the one who are very close and observing the one who was murdered.|
|Eklavya Mayank said: (Jun 22, 2013)|
|If A person is living alone than only these three persons are the prime suspects as they are totally aware of his routine making it easy for them to eliminate the target.|
|Gabe said: (Jun 8, 2014)|
|I agree with @Pan - just because they may know what happened before the murder, it is "erroneous" to assume that they can, without a doubt, give a clue.|
|Steve said: (Jun 28, 2014)|
|I agree with @Pan. They need to change the wording from can to may.|
|Llumi said: (Jun 29, 2014)|
|I think II is also implicit. The victim was a LONE resident. Who would they suspect first but be the closest to her?
"Generally in SUCH cases the persons known to the resident are directly or indirectly involved in the murder. " It did not say ALL cases anyway.
|Everett said: (Jul 14, 2014)|
|Assumption II can go either way. It all depends on your definition of "involved.".
I consider being an eye witness to be "indirectly involved" in a murder. You didn't help the murder take place, but you were part of the event, indirectly. The problem is, where does the line between being "indirectly involved" and "not involved" end? If you want to be really technical about it, even manufacturing the weapon that resulted in the person's murder could be considered involved. It all depends on your definition of "involved. ".
Also, this isn't every case, just a generalization. It doesn't have to be correct, which is why it's an assumption.
|Eli said: (Oct 6, 2014)|
|Pan is correct. It is possible that none of them could have been able to give a clue. This needs to be fixed.
II may be true in real life, but it is not implicit in the statement. The statement only mentioned the figures in I.
The correct answer should be neither.
|Charles said: (Oct 27, 2014)|
|I agree with @Pan, the I. Statement should say that the domestic servant, watchman and the lift man (Might) give a clue about the suspected murder. The meaning of might and can is very definite, therefore arousing Confusion.|
|David said: (Feb 28, 2015)|
|Assumption II should be the correct answer. The use of the word "interrogation" implies that the police are questioning with a motive (usually to induce a confession). Had the word "questioned" been used, assumption I would have been the most logical answer.|
|David said: (Feb 28, 2015)|
|The word "interviewed", would have been more appropriate to use than the word "interrogate".|
|Rajnish said: (May 3, 2016)|
|The correct answer is assumption 1 and assumption 2 both are correct.
Most of the murdered used to be planned by these persons only because they know every detail of their boss life.
|Basssultan said: (Sep 23, 2016)|
|Generally, means that it is true for all cases. A general statement is true for all elements of a set. Assumption 2 is far from correct.|
|Mahi said: (Nov 1, 2016)|
|I think statement 2 must be correct as well since the police generally interrogate these people assuming they might be an accomplice in the happening of the murder or the real murderers. I mean it is a general preview ain't it?|
|Teigen said: (Nov 22, 2016)|
|Agree @Pan. The use of the word "can, " or "has the ability to" is implied but not implicit. Changing 'can' to 'may' (the possibility of) would make statement 1 implicit.|
|Pooja said: (Mar 5, 2017)|
|I think Both1 and 2 should be the answer.|
|Chahat said: (Mar 7, 2017)|
|2 is implicit because generally is the term used here.|
|Akshay said: (Sep 8, 2017)|
|As Domestic servant, watchman can give a clue like who entered the bldg or house etc around that time so 1 is implicit & as it is not necessary that known people are always directly or indirectly involved as there may be other factors to like robbery gone wrong etc.|
|Mitch said: (Jul 15, 2019)|
The word "can" refers to ability. Meaning if they have clues, they "can" share it and if they don't, they "can't". If the sentence read, "The domestic servant, watchman and the liftman "will" give a clue about the suspected murder", then it "can" be argued that the assumption was erroneous.
|Kevin said: (Oct 29, 2019)|
|I think the question is about an assumption the police are making, not the reader or the person making the statement.|
|Kevin said: (Oct 29, 2019)|
|Also, the word "can" has a somewhat different, looser meaning in international English in the commonwealth, it seems to me. It seems to me I have heard it used that way before, to mean "might" or "might could". Not sure if it comes from England or India or what (I was in Botswana).|
Post your comments here:
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.