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

Question

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.

(B) The signatures of less than 10 percent of the tenants were obtained on the pet lovers’ petition.

(C) Ninety percent of the tenants are against changing the rule forbidding pets.

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

(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.

Source: LSAT

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This is a suppressed premise question. The argument states that a rule can be changed only if two criteria are meet: First, 10 percent of the tenants must sign a petition to change the rule. Second, an election must be held in which a majority of the tenants vote in favor of changing the rule. The argument states that the rule was not changed and then concludes that the proposal to change the rule must have been voted down. This presumes that the necessary 10 percent of the people signed the petition.  The answer, therefore, is (A).

pushpitkc · Answer

The argument talks about a residential building where the procedure to change a rule 
is to first obtain the signatures of 10 percent of the tenants on a petition to change a 
rule and later get a majority vote of all the tenants in the building.

Option A(The pet lovers succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 10 percent of the 
tenants on their petition)  is an assumption which is necessary for the argument to 
hold good because if the tenants did not get the 10% of signatures, the majority vote also
wouldn't have happened!

Skywalker18 · Answer

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.

gmatexam439 · Answer

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

David nguyen · Answer

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.

HarshaBujji · 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??

nightblade354 · Answer

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

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.

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

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