Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is an assumption question. The argument concludes that landlines will cease to exist. The evidence provided is that their functions for personal and business communication are being replaced by cell phones and computers. We need to find the unstated premise that bridges this evidence and conclusion.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The argument focuses exclusively on the role of landlines in personal and business communication. However, it concludes that landlines will "no longer exist" entirely. This is a very strong conclusion. What if landlines serve other critical functions? For example, some security systems, emergency services (like 911 location accuracy), or specialized equipment might still rely on them. The argument implicitly assumes that no such essential, alternative uses for landlines exist.
Let's analyze the options:
- (A) is contradicted by the premise about "personal needs."
- (B) This statement perfectly fills the logical gap. If landlines have no other necessary function beyond the communication roles that are now obsolete, then it is logical to conclude that landlines themselves will disappear.
- (C) This is a restatement of the conclusion, not an assumption supporting it.
- (D) This is a premise of the argument, not an unstated assumption.
- (E) This is an overstatement; the argument says "almost everyone," not everyone.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The argument's conclusion that landlines will vanish depends on the assumption that their communication function is their only essential function.
Disregard commonly known facts. Which conclusion would follow on the basis of given statements only?
Statement (I): Some bottles are car. Some cars are cycle.
Conclusion: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{[(I)] Some bottles are cycle is a possibility.} \\ \bullet & \text{[(II)] All bottles are cycle.} \\ \end{array}\]
If \(8x + 5x + 2x + 4x = 114\), then, \(5x + 3 = ?\)
If \(r = 5 z\) then \(15 z = 3 y,\) then \(r =\)