The answer is (D).The pattern of reasoning is this: in order for something to be true (completing the processing on time), two things need to be true (having enough time and having help), but since they aren't - it isn't true.

This is a pattern which (D) follows, with the thing being resolution 27 passage, and the conditions being having the mayor's signature and having the approve of council members.

Breaking this down with more logical detail:

The pattern of reasoning can be broken down thusly:

Let's call these three claims (A), (B) and (C):

(a) Jones will complete the processing of the forms by deadline

(b) Jones has enough time to process the forms

(c) Jones will have someone to help him

The argument is:

1) For Jones to finish on time, both conditions (having enough time and having an assistant) must occur.

2) Both conditions are not true: Jones has neither enough time, nor help.

Conclusion:

3) Jones will not complete the processing of the forms on time

So, the pattern of reasoning is:

(1) if (a) is true, then (b) and also (c) must be true. (a) ===> (b) ^ (c)

(2) Both (b) and (c) are not true. (~ (b) ^ ~ (c))

----

Conclusion: a is not true: (~ (a))

(D) fits this pattern exactly. We just have to redefine (a), (b) and (c) as:

(a) Resolution 27 will be approved

(b) Resolution 27 has the mayor's signature.

(c) Resolution 27 has the approval of a majority of the council members.

The above pattern applies precisely:

(1) if (a) is true, then (b) and also (c) must be true. (a) ===> (b) ^ (c)

(2) Both (b) and (c) are not true. (~ (b) ^ ~ (c))

----

Conclusion: a is not true: (~ (a))

As always, we can also solve by eliminating the other options:

(A) Every employee of the Altierra Corporation receives three weeks of vacation, and since Maya is an employee of the Altierra Corporation, she must have receive three weeks of vacation.

this is a pattern of: if (a) is true then (b) is true, and since (a) is true, then (b) is (with (a) being being an employee of Altierra, and (b) receiving vacation). Nope!

(B) The building on State Street owned by Jared should be demolished. Up until last year the building was in excellent shape, but since that point the building has become uninhabitable and a danger to the public.

this argument doesn't follow any pattern of reasoning on its own, but rather it relies on assumptions which, even though they make sense, are unstated (such as: if a building is inhabitable, it must be demolished). Not the pattern we are looking for (C) All of the students that attend Chase Elementary live in the area immediately surrounding the school. Kofi lives within sight of Chase Elementary, and therefore Kofi must attend the school.

This is the (flawed and mistaken) structure of: if (a) then (b), and since (b) then (a). ((a) being attending chase, (b) living close to Chase). not logically true, and not the the pattern we are looking for

(E) To be awarded the Certificate of Merit at this school, you must maintain a perfect grade point average. Tomas has not maintained a perfect grade point average at this school, so he cannot receive the Certificate of Merit.

pattern: if (a) then (b), and since not (a), then not (b) ((a)- getting Certificate of Merit, (b) maintaining perfect GPA). Not the patter we are looking for
_________________