Introduction / Context:
The statement compares prices between big showrooms and small shops. The task is to infer which underlying belief must hold for the price difference to be reasonable without alleging dishonesty or unreliability.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Observed claim: Big-showroom items are costlier.
- I claims small shops are never reliable (value judgment, not required).
- II alleges cheating by showroom managers (moral judgment, not required).
- III cites higher overheads in big showrooms, a cost-based rationale for higher prices.
Concept / Approach:
- Price differences often stem from cost structures (rent, décor, staff, inventory costs, prime-location premiums).
- Reliability (I) and cheating (II) are not necessary to explain a cost difference.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: The statement does not comment on reliability; costlier does not imply better or worse reliability. Not needed.Assess II: No dishonesty is implied by the statement; higher prices can be a consequence of higher costs, not cheating.Assess III: This provides a logical economic reason for higher prices and is the only necessary assumption. If overheads are higher, prices tend to be higher.
Verification / Alternative check:
If III is false (showrooms have no higher overhead), the blanket claim of higher prices becomes less justified. Thus III is the needed assumption.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
None/I/II/Either II or III all introduce unnecessary or incorrect moral claims, or bundle an unnecessary option with the correct one.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating price differences with quality differences or dishonesty.
Final Answer:
Only III is implicit
Discussion & Comments