Logical Reasoning - Statement and Assumption - Discussion

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.

I think being a salesman, the person will not stay away from the society definitely he will try to enter. So the watchman should send him away. Please clarify!

There are two scenarios to the above question:

1) After Reading the Board, all the walkin salesman will be stay away.

2) Society Guard will be able to send back the walkin salesman who in any case try to get into the society.

But what about those salesman who have come with an appointment. The sentence no where mentions in particular the kind of salesman.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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