Introduction / Context:
Promotional claims are anchored in what consumers desire. The slogan promises value equivalent to price. To function as persuasive communication, it must assume that buyers seek full value, but it need not assume anything about competitors’ pricing strategies.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Claim: Buying here yields full value for money.
- Assumption I: Competitors price above worth.
- Assumption II: Consumers want full value for money.
Concept / Approach:
- An advertisement’s appeal is built on a customer’s underlying preference (value for money).
- To be meaningful, the statement does not require that others overprice; parity or even some competitors giving equal value does not negate the claim.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II is essential: if customers do not care about value-for-money, the slogan has little persuasive power.Assumption I is not necessary: the shop can make a value claim even if other shops also price fairly.
Verification / Alternative check:
Drop II and keep I: The ad loses relevance. Keep II and drop I: The ad still persuades; thus only II is required.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Either / Neither / Both: These wrongly presume competitor behavior is necessary for the appeal’s logic.
Common Pitfalls:
Overgeneralizing that comparative claims require competitors to be worse.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments