Consumer: If you buy a watch at a department store and use it only in

I came down to B, C and D.

Logic -> Department store(DS) -> to provide refund, provided that the watch is used the way it is meant to be used
Jewellery store(JS) -> to provide me refund

It is evident that there is a gap in logic. Why should JS provide refund as DS does? Did the watch bought from JS meet the condition of DS i.e., the watch is used the way it is meant to be used

Option D fills the gap in logic.

So, option D is right. Let me know if I wrong. Thanks!

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Wait, what? You could drive a truck through the holes in the logic here. My first two objections would be: 1) How did you use the watch? Did you use it only in the way it was intended to be used, or did you use it improperly and smash it up somehow? And 2) why do you expect Bingham’s, which is not a department store, to offer the same return policy as a department store? These are pretty big holes.

The question asks us to find an assumption on which the argument relies (a necessary assumption) and I think my two objections, above, are going to point out the answer. Let’s see.

A) The argument is not about who should or should not sell something. It’s about whether Bingham’s should take back the watch. This can’t be the answer because it’s just not related to the conclusion of the argument.

B) It’s not about length of time. He only had the watch for one day, for one thing. Not even close.

C) I think this one would be the answer if it was a Sufficient Assumption question, because if this answer is true, then Bingham’s probably has to take back the watch, but I don’t think this is a good answer for a Necessary Assumption question. In other words, I think this answer could be untrue (not all sellers have to refund all purchasers) and the argument would still stand. Remember, the correct answer on a Sufficient Assumption question, if true, will force the argument to win. The correct answer on a Necessary Assumption, if false, will force the argument to lose. This is a Necessary Assumption question, so we’re still looking.

D) If this is untrue, then I think the argument completely collapses. If the guy used his watch as a doorstop for a day, or as an anvil, and then it stopped working, then why on earth would Bingham’s be obligated to issue a refund? This is the best answer so far. If it’s untrue, the argument is in big trouble. That’s what “necessary” means.

E) None of the facts is about whether a purchased watch is “new” or not. This is irrelevant.

So our answer is D.

Consumer: 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. So by this very reasonable standard, Bingham’s Jewelry Store should give me a refund even though they themselves are not a department store, since the watch I bought from them stopped working the very next day.

The consumer’s argument relies on the assumption that

(A) one should not sell something unless one expects that it will function in the way it was originally designed to function - WRONG. It is not about not selling.

(B) a watch bought at a department store and a watch bought at Bingham’s Jewelry Store can both be expected to keep working for about the same length of time if each is used only as it was intended to be used - WRONG. Nothing was wrong except the "length of time" usage as it modifies the passage.

(C) a seller should refund the money that was paid for a product if the product does not perform as the purchaser expected it to perform - WRONG. On both highlighted parameters this choice falters. Both are out of scope and a bit of exaggeration.

(D) the consumer did not use the watch in a way contrary to the way it was intended to be used - CORRECT. Going by the passage this one touches intended way of usage and if that doesn't happen then passage is broken apart.

(E) the watch that was purchased from Bingham’s Jewelry Store was not a new watch - WRONG. New or old is irrelevant.

Answer D.

­
Premises:
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.
The watch I bought from Bingham’s Jewelry Store stopped working the very next day.

Conclusion: By this very reasonable standard, Bingham’s Jewelry Store should give me a refund even though they themselves are not a department store

The consumer says that the department stores have a certain standard. By that standard, BJS should give him a refund i.e. if the same standard is applied on BJS, they should give him a refund.
He tells us that he deserves to get the refund because the watch stopped working the very next day. But he doesn't tell us whether he satisfied the second condition for refund - the watch was used only in the way it was intended to be used. This is an assumption he makes.


(A) one should not sell something unless one expects that it will function in the way it was originally designed to function

There is no discussion on conditions under which one should sell something.

(B) a watch bought at a department store and a watch bought at Bingham’s Jewelry Store can both be expected to keep working for about the same length of time if each is used only as it was intended to be used

The length of time for which the watch should keep working is not discussed. This would be a discussion on the lines of - a watch of this quality sold in departmental stores is expected to work for 20 years but my watch gave way after just 15 years even though I bought it from BJS. BJS sells used watches.
The discussion is about defective products - the watches that go bad next day itself.
Also, it is not about the similarity between watches sold at departmental stores and BJS - the point is that the stores use a certain standard and if that standard is used on BJS then by that standard BJS should refund the money.

(C) a seller should refund the money that was paid for a product if the product does not perform as the purchaser expected it to perform

This generic statement is not an assumption made by the consumer. There is no discussion of purchaser expectation - that is a totally different discussion. Different purchasers could have vastly different expectations - say a watch should last 20 yrs vs it should last 50 yrs so even beyond this argument, it doesn't make sense.
The consumer is using a defined standard used in stores to establish his expectations.

(D) the consumer did not use the watch in a way contrary to the way it was intended to be used

This was what was missing from our premises. He tells us that his watch stopped the next day but doesn't tell us that he used it only in teh way it was intended to be used. This is an assumption he makes that it is obvious I used it only in the way I was supposed to use it. So I should get a refund. Correct.

(E) the watch that was purchased from Bingham’s Jewelry Store was not a new watch

The consumer does not assume that it was not a new watch.

Answer (D)­

Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLUA
Hard Assumption Question: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg­