Directions: Two statements are followed by two assumptions 1 and 2. You have…
2025
Directions: Two statements are followed by two assumptions 1 and 2. You have to consider the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to pick the assumption that can definitely be drawn from the given statements and indicate your answer accordingly.
Statement:
A Russian on Tuesday sat at the entrance of Sri Kumarakottam temple in Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, seeking alms.
Assumptions:
1. The Russian didn't have money to meet his necessary expenses, forcing him to beg.
2. The Russian was visiting the city of Kancheepuram.
- A.
Only assumption 1 is implicit
- B.
Only assumption 2 is implicit
- C.
Neither of the assumptions is implicit
- D.
Both assumptions are implicit
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: An assumption is 'implicit' only when the statement presupposes it -- an everyday, taken-for-granted reading that needs no extra justification. It is NOT implicit if it needs outside information, or if it is merely one of several equally plausible explanations.
Application: Begging for alms is conventionally read as arising from a lack of money for basic needs -- no alternative cause is suggested, so this is an ordinary, taken-for-granted reading of the statement. Separately, the statement singles the man out by nationality ('a Russian') while placing him at one specific local temple; describing someone this way is everyday shorthand for 'not a resident of this place', so it is presupposed that he has come from elsewhere rather than being settled there.
Cross-check -- why the other readings don't hold:
Reading only the money-cause as implicit accepts the nationality detail as decorative, when it carries exactly the same everyday inference as the begging detail -- treating the two clues inconsistently.
Reading only the nationality detail as implicit does the reverse -- it accepts that 'A Russian' signals non-residence but treats begging as possibly unrelated to a lack of funds, though that is the more ordinary everyday reading of the act.
Dismissing both would mean treating everyday shorthand (begging as a sign of need, nationality as a sign of non-residence) as pure coincidence, which is a stronger claim than the statement supports.
Since both the money-cause and the visitor-status readings pass the same everyday-presupposition test, both assumptions are implicit.