Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Advertisement: “Fly X Airways whenever you decide to go places. Our fares are less than train fares.” Which assumptions are implicit in the advertiser’s claim?

Introduction / Context:
The ad tries to persuade by price comparison: X Airways fares are lower than train fares. We must identify what belief about consumer behavior or competitors is necessary for this pitch.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: People prefer to travel by air when the fares are reasonable (or lower than alternatives).
• II: The fares of other airlines are costlier than those of X Airways.

Concept / Approach:
For the comparison to move customers, the advertiser assumes price sensitivity that makes air travel attractive when cheap. The ad compares with trains, not with other airlines; competitor pricing among airlines is not required.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Negate I: If people do not switch just because air is cheaper than train, the message loses persuasive power. Hence I is necessary.2) Negate II: Even if other airlines had similar or lower prices, the claim “cheaper than train” could still motivate switching from rail to air via X Airways; II is not essential for the ad’s effectiveness.

Verification / Alternative check:
Ads often highlight relative advantage to the dominant alternative (train), assuming consumers respond to monetary savings and convenience.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II / Both / Either: II concerns intra-airline competition and is not needed for the train comparison to work.
• Neither: Denies price responsiveness, contradicting basic marketing logic.

Common Pitfalls:
Do not import competitor claims that the ad never makes; stick to the explicit comparison (air vs train).

Final Answer:
Only assumption I is implicit