Wiley Edge Inferred Meaning Quiz-4

Argument I suggests that constructing new residential buildings will address the housing needs of the growing population, making it a valid point. On the other hand, argument II highlights the potential negative impact of increased congestion and strain on existing infrastructure. Both arguments have their merits, indicating that either one or both of them could be considered strong.

Building new shopping malls can indeed attract more customers and stimulate the local economy, which supports argument I. However, constructing additional shopping malls can also contribute to traffic congestion and environmental pollution, which supports argument II. Therefore, both arguments hold merit and are considered strong.

Either I or II is strong because different perspectives can exist regarding the financial management and organizational capabilities of the United States in hosting the Olympic Games. Some may argue against it due to concerns about financial mismanagement, while others may support it based on the country's infrastructure and previous successful hosting experiences.

Neither advocating for permanently shutting down the platforms nor giving them a chance to improve their content quality is strong because it is important to consider a balanced approach. Simply shutting down platforms without giving them an opportunity to improve denies the possibility of rectification, while solely giving them a chance without any consequences for spreading false information may perpetuate the problem. A comprehensive approach that combines measures for accountability and improvement is more reasonable.

Both arguments have a strong point about the regulation of private hospitals in India.

Both arguments have valid points. Argument I suggests that banning cellphones can minimize distractions and improve concentration in classrooms, which can lead to better learning outcomes. Argument II emphasizes the educational potential of cellphones and how they can be utilized as valuable learning tools. The strength of the arguments may vary depending on factors such as the age group, educational context, and specific policies in place.

The statement suggests that the decline in profits is a result of a combination of increased expenses (assumption I) and decreased revenue (assumption II). Both assumptions align with the given information.

The statement indicates that the educational institute offers scholarships to outstanding students, implying that the institute values academic excellence (assumption I). Furthermore, the mention of scholarships suggests that they cover tuition fees and other expenses (assumption II).

The statement indicates that the new product received positive reviews from consumers, which could imply that it fulfilled consumer expectations (assumption I). However, it does not explicitly state whether the product outperformed competitors in the market (assumption II). Hence, either assumption I or II could be valid.

The statement suggests that the new public transportation system aims to reduce traffic congestion, implying that increased use of public transportation reduces the number of private vehicles on the road (assumption I).