Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)
In this stimulus, the city official makes the following simple argument:
- Premise: Springfield city codes classify pigs as livestock.
Premise: Individuals may not keep livestock in Springfield.
Conclusion: Amy would not be allowed to keep the pot-bellied pig as a pet.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If we negate this answer choice, we get the following: "Amy does not live in Springfield." If this is true, the official's argument falls apart, because the city codes where Amy does live might allow keeping livestock.
Answer choice (B): This is not an assumption required by the argument. If we negate this answer choice, we get: "Pigs are classified as pets in Springfield." Even if this were the case, a general prohibition of livestock is broad enough to prohibit all livestock, including livestock animals that are considered pets.
Answer choice (C): This is not an assumption required by the argument. Even if this weren't the case, that would not be problematic to the official's argument. That is, if we negate this answer choice we get "not any non-livestock animal can be kept in Springfield," which has no effect on the argument that Amy can't keep her livestock as a pet in Springfield.
Answer choice (D): This is not an assumption required by the official's argument. If we apply the Assumption negation technique, we get the following" "Dogs and cats are classified as livestock in Springfield." This would broaden the ramifications of the general livestock prohibition, but it would have no effect on the argument that Amy cannot keep her pig as a pet.
Answer choice (E): This is not an assumption required by the argument. Negating this choice: "It is illegal for pet stores to sell pigs in Springfield." This would have no effect on the argument that Amy is prohibited from keeping her new pet.