Introduction / Context:
Advertisements frequently rely on unstated beliefs. Here the ad emphasizes “pure and natural” honey. We test which assumptions must hold for the message to be meaningful.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I: Artificial (or impure) honey can indeed be prepared, so purity is a differentiator.
- II: People do not mind paying more for purity.
- III: No other company supplies pure honey.
Concept / Approach:
- The statement highlights a quality attribute (“pure and natural”). The minimum assumption is that non-pure alternatives exist; otherwise the claim has no contrastive force.
- Price tolerance (II) is not mentioned; the ad does not reference cost.
- Exclusivity (III) is far stronger than the wording; “buy pure honey of X” does not assert monopoly on purity.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Keep I: If impure/artificial honey were impossible, stressing purity would be pointless.Discard II: The ad can persuade even price-sensitive buyers; price is unstated.Discard III: The copy does not claim “only X is pure.”
Verification / Alternative check:
I alone makes the descriptor meaningful. II and III are neither stated nor necessary.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Combinations including II or III assume extra claims not required by the advertisement.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading exclusivity or price insensitivity into generic quality-focused ads.
Final Answer:
Only I is implicit
Discussion & Comments