  I present an example in which the individuals' preferences are strict
orderings, and under the majority rule, a transitive social ordering can be
obtained and thus a non-empty choice set can also be obtained. However, the
individuals' preferences in that example do not satisfy any conditions
(restrictions) of which at least one is required by Inada (1969) for social
preference transitivity under the majority rule. Moreover, the considered
individuals' preferences satisfy none of the conditions of value restriction
(VR), extremal restriction (ER) or limited agreement (LA), some of which is
required by Sen and Pattanaik (1969) for the existence of a non-empty social
choice set. Therefore, the example is an exception to a number of theorems of
social preference transitivity and social choice set existence under the
majority rule. This observation indicates that the collection of the conditions
listed by Inada (1969) is not as complete as might be supposed. This is also
the case for the collection of conditions VR, ER and LA considered by Sen and
Pattanaik (1969). This observation is a challenge to some necessary conditions
in the current social choice theory. In addition to seeking new conditions, one
possible way to deal with this challenge may be, from a theoretical
prospective, to represent the identified conditions (such as the VR, ER and LA)
in terms of a common mathematical tool, and then, people may find more.
