Introduction / Context:
This question uses transitivity of “better than” across three stores. If A is better than B, and C is better than A, what can we say about C compared with both A and B? We must deduce whether the combined claim follows necessarily.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Bookstore > Newsstand (for postcard selection quality).
- Drugstore > Bookstore.
- “Better than” is assumed to be transitive and consistent for this attribute.
Concept / Approach:
- From Drugstore > Bookstore and Bookstore > Newsstand, it follows that Drugstore > Newsstand.
- Therefore, the drugstore is better than both the bookstore and the newsstand.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Start with Bk > Ns.Given Dr > Bk.By transitivity: Dr > Ns.Thus Dr is better than Bk and Ns, matching the claim.
Verification / Alternative check:
Assign scores: Ns = 60, Bk = 75 (Bk > Ns), Dr = 85 (Dr > Bk). Then Dr > Ns holds, confirming the claim.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
false: Conflicts with the transitive chain.uncertain: No ambiguity remains; the relation is fully determined.both true and false: Not applicable given consistent ordering.
Common Pitfalls:
Overlooking that “better than” comparisons can be chained, or misreading the second premise as “bookstore better than drugstore.”
Final Answer:
true
Discussion & Comments