"If political leadership fails to emerge, there is likelihood of military taking over power in developing countries. Radical student groups or labour may try to raise revolution but they are not likely to compete with the military. Military intervention, rule, and withdrawal from politics is closely related to a society's level of political development." In the context of political development, the assumption in the above passage is that

Explanation: The passage states, "If political leadership fails to emerge, there is likelihood of military taking over power in developing countries." This directly implies that the absence or failure of political leadership creates a void or vacuum, which the military then steps in to fill. Analyzing the options: A) political leadership is not an effective instrument The passage speaks of political leadership failing to *emerge*, not necessarily that it is *ineffective* if it does emerge. The focus is on its absence, not its quality. B) military fills in political vacuum This aligns perfectly with the passage. The "failure to emerge" of political leadership creates a "political vacuum," and the military then "taking over power" means it fills that vacuum. This is the core assumption for why the military intervenes. C) military intervention is inevitable for development The passage says military intervention is "closely related to a society's level of political development," but it does not state that it is *inevitable for development*. It suggests it's a consequence or symptom of certain stages of political development, not a necessary precursor. D) None of the above Since option B accurately captures the central assumption, this option is incorrect. Therefore, the correct answer is B because the passage assumes that the military steps in to occupy the space left by a failing or absent political leadership.