Mr. Janeck, a permanent resident of a remote island called Hypothetica

A is too lopsided to be an assumption. the domain of A is too wide to be an assumption
reasoning as why A is wrong:
A says: None of the sedans owned by those staying in Hypothetica belong to a non-Mersche brand.
------------->the argument is talking about "luxury sedans" so there is no point to make this domain too large and talk about "NONE of the sedans", if u do so then u possibly include both "luxury sedans" AND "non luxury sedans" .
There might be a situation where "non luxury sedan" is "non-Mersche brand"(see i have negated A), still the argument will hold true, there by making this assumption in A non valid !!

So the correct assumption would have been : (modified A): None of the LUXURY sedans owned by those staying in Hypothetica belong to a non-Mersche brand

what is the source of this question?

Hey carcass,

The ‘comma’ thing is a trivial typo …not of much value to disqualify a CR question as ‘good’ and even if it isn’t ‘good’, let us treat it as a brain teaser as long as the answer isn’t debatable (that’s what makes CR’s my favorite at least)…Nwz I have added the comma




Yes aditya, I have corrected the typo in option A...Thanks for pointing out ...and this is exactly why B is wrong (discussed below)

My 2 cents...

Normally, in an assumption question, find the MISSING link between the premises and the conclusion.

Premise 1: Mr. Janeck is a permanent resident of Hypothetica.
Premise 2: Mr. Janeck owns a luxury sedan.
Conclusion: Hence, this sedan is of Mersche make.

The author intends to say that JUST because Mr. Janeck is a permanent resident of Hypothetica AND owns a luxury sedan, this sedan has to be of Mersche make. The author draws his conclusion after considering the truth of the two premises SIMULTANEOUSLY, a fact that the contender assumption should take note of.

(Pre-thought) MISSING link: All luxury sedans owned by permanent residents of Hyothetica are of Mersche make ONLY.

Option A is a paraphrase of the above statement and says that none of the luxury sedans owned by any permanent resident in Hypothetica belongs to a brand other than Mersch. This succinctly means that all luxury sedans owned by permanent Hypothetica residents are of Mersch make only (matches our pre-thought...doesn't it?).

Option B on the other hand says that all luxury sedans in Hypothetica are of Mersch only. This presents an ambiguity which would do little to serve our purpose. The stimulus no-where states that the luxury sedan owned by Mr. Janeck IS actually IN Hypothetica. Very likely that Mr. Janeck owns a farm-house in the mainland and has a luxury sedan there (quoted about in the question) rather than on the island.
Going ahead (as remarked in the quotation above), this statement considers Mersche luxury sedans owned not only by permanent residents but also by non-permanent residents (not necessary that all luxury-sedan-owners on the island are permanent residents...what if we have foreigners camped on the island for a temporary period and still owning Mersche luxury sedans?). Negate B...'Not all luxury sedans in Hypothetica are of Mersche make'-->Atleast one luxury sedan in Hypothetica is of non-Mersche make-->One non-Mersche luxury sedan owned by one non-permanent resident and all other luxury sedans, which are of Mersche make, are owned by permanent residents (A possible scenario which does not destroy the argument despite negating B). This further debilitates this option as a contender. Indeed, for this option to be a true assumption, only if we additionally assume (a fact not desirable in an assumption question. The option by itself should be able to qualify as an assumption) that the luxury sedan owned by Mr. Janeck is actually PRESENT WITHIN THE PREMISES OF the island AND that all luxury sedans in Hypothetica are owned by permanent residents only (OR (simply) that all residents in Hypothetica are permanent), does B fit in our scheme of things.

C talks about natives. A native can be a permanent resident but any permanent resident need not necessarily be a native. So in the first place, we do not know whether Mr. Janeck is a native. If he actually is not one, this option does not stand correct. Second, this option says that all natives DO own (not ONLY own) a Mersch luxury sedan. So even if Mr. Janeck were a native, he may actually be owning more than one luxury sedan, some of them of a non-Mersck make, while others of a Mersch make and the question does not really make it clear as to which sedan owned by him is being spoken about.

D. Just because Mersche luxury sedans are owned only by Hyothetica residents, it need not be necessarily true that all permanent residents (who own luxury sedans) own Mersche luxury sedans. Mr. Janeck may very well belong to the latter group.

E. Just because none of the luxury sedans of a non-Mersche make are owned by sedan-owners staying in Hypothetica need not necessarily mean that they own luxury sedans of Mersch make. In an extreme case, they may not own luxury sedans at all with the only exception being Mr. Janeck. They may be owners of non-luxury sedans only. Second, ALL those STAYING in Hypothetica may not necessarily be permanent residents...(carry out analysis as that for B to eliminate)

is it that u have made up this question?
kindly mention the source if u have not made up this question

Yes aditya, this question has been written by me. Generally, I do mention the source if it is not me.

interesting question-had to understand the 1 line carefully.
so lets break it
X has PR.X own lux car
c- lux car is or merch

possible assumption

there is no other in market other than merch .
lets read the options

Mr. Janeck, a permanent resident of a remote island Hypothetica, owns a luxury sedan. Hence, this sedan must be of the Mersche make.

Which of the following would have to be assumed for the conclusion to hold?

A. None of the luxury sedans owned by any permanent resident of Hypothetica belongs to a non-Mersche brand.

B. All luxury sedans in Hypothetica are of Mersche make.- all are made by merc-ummm this is not stated..because people can go out and get more lux cars.so all may may not be merc

C. All natives of Hypothetica who are sedan-owners do own luxury sedans of Mersche make.is natives same as people with PR.. nothing is stated of natives

D. Luxury sedans of Mersche make are owned only by permanent residents of Hypothetica. only by permanent in not discussion.it is whether sedans in Hypo are of merch

E. None of the luxury sedans of a non-Mersche make are owned by sedan-owners staying in Hypothetica. reomve all no in the sentence-
lux sedanx of merch make are owned by sedan-owners staying in Hypothetica.-think abt it do we need that.

so all are out only A remains..only tricky option is B..because that coincides with my assumption-but all are of merch make is not what is asked.it is saying hwether sedan in merch make

Conclusion : this sedan must be of the Mersche make.

Negating A and B

A. None of the luxury sedans owned by any permanent resident of Hypothetica belongs to a non-Mersche brand.
---> Logical Opposite of None is Some , So some of the luxury sedans are of non-Mersche Brand. If some are of non Mersche brand than the conclusion cannot be made that the sedan must be of the Mersche make. the conclusion falls apart.

B. All luxury sedans in Hypothetica are of Mersche make. --> Not all [0-99] luxury sedans in Hyptothetica are of Mersche make.
so there is a possibility that there are few Mersche make luxary sedans. the conclusion does not fall apart.

typical e-gmat approach

Premise: Mr. Janeck, a permanent resident of a remote island Hypothetica, owns a luxury sedan

Conclusion: This sedan must be of the Mersche make.

taking all bold we get assumption

"a permanent resident of a remote island Hypothetica owns a luxury sedan of Mershe make"

only A fits best

Can somebody tell me, when is it worth to use negation technique in assumption questions (I do not own it, use only logic)?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.