The Mayor of Vargonia came under flak recently because he cancelled

Question

The Mayor of Vargonia came under flak recently because he cancelled several pre-sanctioned infrastructure development projects. The opposition is claiming that this was a move to persecute them, as more than 90% of the cancelled projects were in constituencies ruled by opposition party members. The Mayor has responded that all the cancelled projects were evaluated and deemed unfeasible in a study conducted by an independent third party. Therefore, his supporters claim that his motivation has been purely non-partisan.
Which of the following is an assumption that the Mayor’s supporters rely on?

A If he wanted to, the Mayor can persecute opposition party members in ways other than by cancelling infrastructure projects.
B The infrastructure projects identified by the study as unfeasible were not mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayors party.
C The canceled projects formed a significant proportion of all the infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D The infrastructure projects planned for constituencies controlled by the Mayors party were all deemed feasible in the independent study.
E Opposition parties also use studies conducted by independent third parties to objectively assess government projects.

Source:Crackverbal

AkshdeepS · Answer

Which of the following is an assumption that the Mayor’s supporters rely on?

A If he wanted to, the Mayor can persecute opposition party members i n ways other than by cancelling infrastructure projects.    We don't know whether other ways are there or not. Very broad scope. 
 
  B The infrastructure projects identified by the study as unfeasible were not mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayors party.    If the cancelled projects are not in Mayor's control, we can assume that Mayor has non-partisan motivation. Let's move on.

C The canceled projects formed a significant proportion of all the infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.   If this is the case, then Mayor would not have cancelled the projects. 
 
D The infrastructure projects planned for constituencies controlled by the Mayors party were all deemed feasible in the independent study.   We are only concerned about the projects which are cancelled.

E Opposition parties also use studies conducted by independent third parties to objectively assess government projects.   Irrelevant

AdityaHongunti · Answer

push12345 · Answer

We need to find an answer choice which on negating proves that minister is partisan

Let's evaluate choices

A If he wanted to, the Mayor can persecute opposition party members in ways other than by cancelling infrastructure projects. very broad.we don't want to know other ways.we need info about partisan

B The infrastructure projects identified by the study as unfeasible were not mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayors party. on negating this if most projects within minister aRe unfeasible ,if this is true but minister has cancelled projects in opposition constituency then it proves he is partisan

C The canceled projects formed a significant proportion of all the infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future. not concerned about how much proportion it make up irrelevant

D The infrastructure projects planned for constituencies controlled by the Mayors party were all deemed feasible in the independent study.  independent study irrelevant

E Opposition parties also use studies conducted by independent third parties to objectively assess government projects _  does not address partisan concern

Give kudos if it helps

Posted from my mobile device

gvij2017 · Answer

If most of unfeasible projects that were cancelled after feasibility study by third party under rein of Mayor are in opposition constituencies, not in his constituencies,  he is partisan  because he cancelled most of the infra projects in animosity with opposition. 
How "B" can be answer then?
 
Eliminating "NOT" in choice B can help much better. I hope.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

J2S2019 · Answer

GMATNinja

Could you please help me understand why option B is correct?

Sneha333 · Answer

B cannot be the answer.A is the correct answer ,although not very airtight.
B The infrastructure projects identified by the study as unfeasible were not mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayors party.-->It is against the premise(you cannot negate the fact that is already given in the argument.]

@All:Please share your understandings.

sayan640 · Answer

This must be a flawed question. Kindly check.  MartyMurray   bb

MartyMurray · Answer

The question works well, though it's just a lift of an official question.

To see why (B) works, notice that "cancelled" and "identified ... as unfeasible" are not the same thing and then notice that, if (B) isn't true, most of the cancelled projects were in a different place from where most of the projects deemed unfeasible were.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The Mayor of Vargonia came under flak recently because he cancelled

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The Mayor of Vargonia came under flak recently because he cancelled

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards