Self-study
Consumer: Support If you buy a watch at a department store and use it only in the way it was intended to be used, but the watch stops working the next day, then the department store will refund your money. ██ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███ █ ██████████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ █ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ████
Summary
A department store will give a refund if a watch is used the right way and breaks the day after purchase. The consumer’s watch broke the day after he bought it from Bingham’s, so by the department store standard he should get a refund.
Notable Assumptions
While the department store standard notes two conditions, the consumer only states that one has been met. While the watch broke the next day, the standard also required that the watch was used as intended. For it to be true that Bingham’s should give a refund, it must be true that the watch was used as intended. There may look like there’s an assumption here that the department store standard should be applied to Bingham’s, however the argument specifically states that Bingham’s should give a refund by this very reasonable standard.
17.
The consumer's argument relies on ███ ██████████ ████
a
one should not ████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████
The argument does not require any assumptions about when things should be sold - the focus is only on refund policies after an item is sold.
b
a watch bought ██ █ ██████████ █████ ███ █ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████
The similarities of the stores are not relevant here - the focus is only on if Bingham’s should give a refund by the department store standard. The argument does not need to make assumptions about the different types of stores.
c
a seller should ██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████
This is too strong. The standard given is very specific - two questions must be met to be given a refund. The argument does not need to assume a much stronger standard that would provide many more refunds.
d
the consumer did ███ ███ ███ █████ ██ █ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████
This fills the gap directly. If it were negated, and the consumer did not use the watch as intended, the consumer would not meet the standard required to receive a refund, and the conclusion would be undermined.
e
the watch that ███ █████████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ ███ █ ███ █████
The argument discusses watches generally, without specific reference to differences between policies regarding new and old watches. This is not necessary for or relevant to the argument.