Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

But the statement does not talk about the security guard so how does the statement 2 follows?

I think the answer should've been 'D' (none) as there is a list for some specific salesman, not all. But the answer is stating "all".

A sign posted does not follow that the sales people will stay away, only that they are kept from entering. There are also no assurances that a security guard could keep them away.

Here it's not mentioned about a security guard in the original statement. It is not implicit.

The use of "implicit" I'm seeing in this test seems unnatural to me. Statement: M corporation has put up a sign on its fence. Implicit assumption: There is a corporation called M corporation. They own a fence. They have an owner or employee or subcontractor to put up a sign on it. They are on a planet that has gravity.

Inferences: They need some way to hold the sign up on the fence, or it will fall down. But this test is calling that an "implicit assumption" I think. The explanation might say "It follows that they would have some way to hold the sign on the fence".

So maybe the question is referring to inferences the listener might make without quibbling or rejecting the statement, rather than assumptions that must be necessary in order for the statement to be meaningful (which I would naturally conceive of as "implicit assumptions".)

So if I want the job I shall have to adjust my concept of "implicit assumptions" for this kind of exercise. It seems to be a test to hire underlings, not to hire managers or someone to be in control.

A notice is not at all a guarantee for debarring all the salespersons, so I does not follow at all.

Answer should be either assumption 1 or 2 or strictly assumption 1.

You simply cannot assume anything, that there is a security guard and even if you are assuming then there is no point to put any notice.

I thought by attending this test I will increase my logical reasoning, but its making me down.

D is the correct answer. Security guard posted at the gate to stop those sales man, might me he has the list whom to send inside and whom to stop. Assumptions are made based on Indian thoughts for most of the q.

"Security guard" is not mentioned in the statement. If there is a security guard in the gate then why should one put up a notice on the gate? A is the right answer.

Correct answer is B, as assumption I cannot be an implicit assumption because:

- The notice might not be noticed by all the sales persons (involuntarily).

- Some sales persons may be visually impaired.

- "Those sales persons" in the statement suggest that some sales persons only are not allowed inside the society, not all etc.

PS: For those who do not understand why the 'security guard' assumption is implicit: The security guard doesn't have to be mentioned in the statement, but if we assume there is a security guard posted at the gate, based on the notice, the security guard can stop the sales persons entering the society.