"I am going to assume that it is."
Translation:Voy a asumir que lo es.
I'm not clear on the grammatical rules here, but would "voy a asumir que es" be an acceptable alternate translation, or is the "lo" necessary to preserve the structure of the sentence? Thanks!
I believe the use of lo is purely idiomatic and not required by any rule of grammar. In other words, I believe Spanish doesn't require an "it" here any more than English does. However, it may sound better to include lo and that may be something we should be learning.
The "lo" is still an object pronoun, which is implicit in the English sentence. The phrase "lo es" means "it is (something)," with "lo" being an explicit reference back to a something stated earlier or clearly understood by all parties. For example:
That book she gave you is yours to keep, right?
I'm going to assume it is (mine to keep).
In the above exchange, "lo" would represent the parenthetical bit. I assume it would sound incomplete to a native Spanish speaker if you left "lo" out.
I tried ¨voy a asumir que es¨and was marked wrong. The "lo" must be necessary.
The "Lo" here is really necessary, otherwise the Spanish sounds wrong. Here is an explanation from the web to illustrate this. Using Lo With Ser and Estar It is common when answering questions to use lo before the verbs for "to be" to refer to a preceding noun or adjective. When used in this way, lo has neither number nor gender. —¿Es nueva tu computadora?. —No lo es. ("Is your computer new?" "It isn't.") —¿Estaban felices? —Sí, lo estaban. ("Were they happy?" "Yes, they were.")
I don't know whether it's a possibility, but in general That's it = Esto/Eso es
I should think it would be - eso lo es. In this sentence, I believe the phrase que lo es means "that it is it." The last "it" is implied in English, but is represented by lo in the Spanish. Also, the "that" is really a conjunction and is part of the "assume that" phrase.