Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

At least you need to specify that there is a guard.

Acc. to me answer is neither 1 nor 2 as in statement its written 'THOSE' means we not 'ALL' and no security guard is mentioned.

If you had a stack of money in a field, with no one guarding it but there was a sign saying not to take it you would still take if their was no one around. This means that the salespeople would still go near the establishment even if there was a sign saying they couldn't, thus the need for a guard to stop them from doing so.

Answer is A, nothing is, mentioned about security guard, so we can predict as guard is helpful !

'Those sales person' implies to a particular group of sales person.

The statement does not mention any 'security guard'. There may be more than one security guard, CCTV cameras, trained dogs, robots, whatever! How can we jump to a security guard conclusion.

There is nothing mentioned about the security guard so how can we jump to the conclusion that the decision has been made by the security guard.

In my opinion, option B (Only Statement II is implicit) is correct.

Consider this instance:

The M Co-operative society might have employed huge sales workforce, out of them, they wanted to restrict the entry for some of the Salesman. Now in practical sense, just by seeing the notice/by overseeing the notice, such sales person may not stop entering the premises.

So to avoid them, a security guard may do the needful. Since Security Guard is also human, he cannot remember each and everyone whom to be stopped, so the notice will help (Also in practicality, security guard may get changed often since they are contract employees).

Since, 'Assumption I' states, " 'All the sales persons' will stay away from the 'M' Cooperative Housing Society", the assumption is contradicting the statement wherein it is specific to restrict some of the sales staff where as 'Assumption I' says to restrict all sales staff, it is not implicit. Other views are solicited.

There has been no mention of a guard hence we cannot assume that there will be a guard in the first place let alone him stopping the salespersons. According to me only assumption I is implicit.

Assumption ii is implicit for assuming sales people might try to enter the society (and security guard may stop them). So how is assumption I implicit as well for assuming that all sales people will stay away?