Critical Reasoning (Assumptions) Advertisement: 'To buy an X TV, contact Y — the sole agent of X TV.' Which assumptions are implicit?

Introduction / Context:
The ad directs buyers to a specific seller identified as the sole agent. We must decide what beliefs make this call-to-action reasonable.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: People generally prefer to buy TV through a sole agent (or will follow such exclusive sourcing).
• II: TV manufacturers do not sell directly.

Concept / Approach:
The advertiser wants prospects to contact Y. That presumes consumers are willing to purchase via the sole agent channel or regard sole agency as legitimate/advantageous. It need not assert anything about direct manufacturer sales.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) By highlighting 'sole agent,' the ad signals exclusivity and reliability, expecting buyers to see Y as the appropriate point of purchase (Assumption I).2) Whether manufacturers also sell directly (II) is irrelevant; even if they do, the ad can still funnel buyers to Y.3) Therefore, only I is necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Negate I: 'People avoid sole agents.' Then the ad’s appeal fails. Negate II: 'Manufacturers sometimes sell directly.' The directive still makes sense as an option or the exclusive local channel.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Both / Either: II is not required for the call-to-action.
• Neither: I is needed to make the directive effective.

Common Pitfalls:
Avoid importing industry structure claims (like 'no direct sales') unless the statement depends on them. The ad’s goal is to channel intent, not define the whole distribution model.

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit