In a large residential building, there is a rule that no pets are allo

The core is: only goes to majority vote if obtains 10 percent of tenants' signatures --> must have gone to majority vote and been voted down

The assumption here is that the petition had 10% of tenants' signatures. If it DIDN'T, the conclusion doesn't work at all; it would not have gone to majority vote. This is (A).

(B) states the opposite of (A). If this is true, the argument doesn't work. They needed to have obtained ten percent.

(C) is incorrect because they needed to obtain 10 percent, but certainly could have obtained more. If they got more signatures, it wouldn't be true that 90% is against the petition.

(D) is not in there at all. We're talking about 10% of signatures on a petition and getting to majority vote. The rule in the stimulus was voted down.

(E) if we don't have 10% then it will be voted down by majority? No, this is not in there.

In a large residential building, there is a rule that no pets are allowed. A group of pet lovers tried to change that rule but failed. The rule-changing procedure outlined in the building’s regulations states that only if a group of tenants can obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on a petition to change a rule will the proposed change be put to a majority vote of all the tenants in the building. It follows that the pet lovers were voted down on their proposal by the majority of the tenants.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) The pet lovers succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on their petition. -Correct. Directly referable from the passage

(B) The signatures of less than 10 percent of the tenants were obtained on the pet lovers’ petition. -Can't be true since a voting happened

(C) Ninety percent of the tenants are against changing the rule forbidding pets. -Majority doesn't mean 90%; it can be 51%.

(D) The support of 10 percent of the tenants for a rule change ensures that the rule change will be adopted. -Extreme

(E) The failure of the pet lovers to obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on their petition for a rule change ensures that the rule change will be voted down by a majority of the tenants. -Out of scope

In a large residential building, there is a rule that no pets are allowed. A group of pet lovers tried to change that rule but failed. The rule-changing procedure outlined in the building’s regulations states that only if a group of tenants can obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on a petition to change a rule will the proposed change be put to a majority vote of all the tenants in the building. It follows that the pet lovers were voted down on their proposal by the majority of the tenants.


Signatures of 10% -> Proposal
Proposal -> Vote Down

What is the leap here?

The statements starts with a condition that only if signatures of 10% of the tenants are obtained, the proposal will be accepted.
Then it goes on saying that the ON the proposal, the change was voted down.
So, the statement gives us a condition but does not tell us whether that condition holds true or succeed or not. We need to defend that condition in order for the conclusion to be drawn properly.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?



This protects the condition. Hang on to this.

This is the opposite of (A). This actually weakens the argument. (B) is out

This may be true, but does it have to be true? No, 80%, 70%, 60%, or greater than 50% will successfully dismiss the changing request. Also, this does not close the GAP whether the the signatures of 10% of the tenants have been obtained. (C) is out

This is again does not say anything about whether the signatures have been obtained. This, if anything, repeats the premise.(D) is out.

Original Logical chain: Accepted proposal -> signature of 10%. -> Vote
Question answer's logical chain: No signature of 10% -> no proposal -> vote. Hence, this is an incorrect answer.

Only (A) is left. A is the answer.

IMO A,

Bunuel nightblade354
But this must be an inference right?? Since Voting took place which implies that they already got 10% of signatures.

How can this be an assumption??

This is because GMAT assumption questions are all necessary assumption questions. The assumption is required. Nowhere is it stated that they did get those signatures. Thus, we need the information that bridges that gap and shows us that they did. That is where the required, albeit omitted, information comes into play, which is our needed assumption and thus our answer choice.

Posted from my mobile device