The Mayor of Vargonia came under flak recently because he cancelled several pre-sanctioned infrastructure development projects. The opposition is claiming that this was a move to persecute them, as more than 90% of the cancelled projects were in constituencies ruled by opposition party members. The Mayor has responded that all the cancelled projects were evaluated and deemed unfeasible in a study conducted by an independent third party. Therefore, his supporters claim that his motivation has been purely non-partisan.
Which of the following is an assumption that the Mayor’s supporters rely on?

1. If he wanted to, the Mayor can persecute opposition party members in ways other than by cancelling infrastructure projects.
2. The infrastructure projects identified by the study as unfeasible were not mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayors party.
3. The canceled projects formed a significant proportion of all the infrastructure projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
4. The infrastructure projects planned for constituencies controlled by the Mayors party were all deemed feasible in the independent study.
5. Opposition parties also use studies conducted by independent third parties to objectively assess government projects.

Let’s now negate option B: the infrastructure projects identified as unfeasible were mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayor’s party. That means out of 100 say 70 were in the Mayor’s party constituencies and 30 were in opposition party. Now out of 30, 27 got cancelled and out of 70 only 7 got cancelled. This breaks the whole argument that the Mayor is non-partisan.

Doubt:as per the negation, shoud’nt more projects from Mayors’s constituencies be cancelled ?here only 7 from Mayor’s party’s constituencies are cancelled. so that goes agianst the negation which states that projects identified as unfeasible were mostly in constituencies controlled by the Mayor’s party.