PT2.S4.Q15 - Changing the rule forbidding pets

AspiringAttorney_AspiringAttorney_ Member
edited January 2021 in Logical Reasoning 117 karma

I don't understand how answer choice A helps the argument, can someone please explain?

Comments

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    edited January 2021 2249 karma

    Ooo, this thing is tricky.
    The proposed change will be put to a majority vote ONLY IF the group of tenants can obtain the signatures of 10% of tenants and the argument concludes the pet lovers were voted down, but in order to be voted down, it assumes there must have been a vote in the first place. And what is required for there to be a vote? tenants must have been able to get 10% of tenant signatures so if that condition is not fulfilled, then we cannot conclude the pet lovers were voted down because a majority vote didn't happen at all
    If my explanation is wrong, could someone point it out? don't want to accidently give misleading answers but this is my take

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    8491 karma

    I think thats right @"ashley.tien"

    Basically, they got a vote (but they lost), so they had to have obtained the 10%.

Sign In or Register to comment.