Persistent Inferred Meaning Quiz 1

The quote exhorts a guy to maintain his modesty even after succeeding. This suggests that people are not often modest after winning. I'm exactly the reverse of that. II is not implied because it makes the statement more generic. People can be humble in general; the question is whether they remain humble after success.

Those who wrote the letter must have considered that the candidates may claim reimbursement if the point wasn't made clear to them if it included expenses that the candidates would be responsible for paying. Also, if reimbursement was not a common practise, the candidates would not request it. I and II are therefore both implicit.

The quote exhorts a guy to maintain his modesty even after succeeding. This suggests that people are not often modest after winning. I'm exactly the reverse of that. II is not implied because it makes the statement more generic. People can be humble in general; the question is whether they remain humble after success.

I'm not being implied. The business is seeking mechanical engineers. One explanation could be that, as I propose, the business expects mechanical engineers to be strong performers. However, there can be another explanation; for instance, the company's management position might require mechanical engineering expertise. However, one thing is for sure. There is a need for supervisors because there was an advertisement for them. II is therefore implicit.

Because the warning was present, getting out of a moving bus must be dangerous. I is therefore implied. II, however, is not implied. The warning would not have been posted there if the authorities had believed that kids would ignore it.

Anything that prevents a youngster from learning must be monitored and, if at all possible, prohibited. Making a student learn should be the goal of the teacher. The primary goal is defeated, claims argument I, because hurting a youngster hinders their ability to learn. It also uses psychologists' results to buttress its position. Thus, I is a convincing argument. According to Argument II, a child who is not caned will become pampered. Although caning is a severe step, there are alternative, more gentle ways to correct a youngster. Furthermore, there are no facts to support the argument. II is therefore a feeble argument.

Due of the possibility of a domino effect, I do not follow. II is a negative inference since it cannot be proven that the penalty was administered properly in the absence of a thorough inquiry. II results in a biassed report.

When the world's living conditions improve, a sanctuary for endangered animals becomes necessary. However, a country cannot consider building sanctuaries if its economy is unable to meet its citizens' basic needs. As a result, the choice is made based on both the requirement and the availability of cash. Consequently, I and II are both powerful arguments.

The right response is option 2. It was clarified whether or not it was necessary to turn rage into energy in this statement. The conclusion I is therefore unimportant.
It is implied in inference II that the ability to turn anger into energy can be learned.
Here, the remark implies that those who possess the ability can transform their rage into energy. Only inference II is made after.

Whether or not the impoverished receive assistance is unknown. Therefore, this conclusion cannot be drawn. However, it is clear from the statement that the government has requested that those with sufficient money forgo the subsidy. The justification for it is that these affluent folks who make a good living do not require the subsidies. Inference 1 is therefore drawn.