Statement: “Buy pure and natural honey of company X,” says a newspaper advertisement. Assumptions: I. Artificial or impure honey can be (and is) prepared in the market. II. People do not mind paying more for pure honey. III. No other company supplies pure honey. Which of the above assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
Advertising often signals differentiation (“pure and natural”) against an implicit backdrop of inferior alternatives. We must decide which beliefs are required for this message to make sense without overcommitting to unnecessary claims about exclusivity or pricing behavior.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Claim: Company X offers “pure and natural” honey.
• Assumption I: Non-pure (artificial/adulterated) honey exists; hence purity is a selling point.
• Assumption II: Consumers are willing to pay a premium for purity.
• Assumption III: No other company supplies pure honey.

Concept / Approach:
For the pitch to be meaningful, “pure” must contrast with something (impure/adulterated honey), making I a natural presupposition. However, the ad does not need to assume that customers will “not mind paying more” (II); the message can be persuasive even at parity prices. Nor must it assume exclusivity (III); many brands can be pure while X still advertises its purity.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating quality positioning with assumptions about willingness to pay, or reading exclusivity into a non-exclusive claim.

Final Answer:
Only Assumption I is implicit.