The photographs that the store developed were quite unsatisfactory

porwal1 Harsh2111s

The photographs that the store developed were quite unsatisfactory. The customer claims to have handled the film correctly. Neither the film nor the camera was defective. If a store does not process pictures properly the customer is owed a refund, so if the customer's claim is correct, the store owes her a refund.

In this customer’s view, the store owes her a refund. She believes this because some random store policy states that “if a store does not process pictures properly” then “the customer is owed a refund.” But what if the customer came in with crappy pictures to start with? The customer refutes this possible rebuttal from the store by claiming that: 1) she handed the film right, 2) the film was not defective, 3) the camera was not defective. The argument concludes that if the customer is stating the truth, the store owes her a refund. We are looking for an answer choice that proves that the customer UNDENIABLY deserves to get a refund.

The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?

(A) If the store owes the customer a refund, then neither the camera nor the film was defective.
This answer choice tells us that whenever the camera/film isn’t defective, then the store must owe her a refund. However, the argument about her deserving a refund doesn’t RELY on this assumption….what about her handling the film poorly?

(B) If neither the film nor the camera was defective, and the customer handled the film correctly, then the store processed it improperly.

This answer choice correctly strengthens the idea that all three conditions hold in this case and IF SO, then the only person who could be at fault is the store.

(C) If pictures are taken with a defective camera, then it is not possible for the store to develop those pictures improperly.
This answer choice makes it clear that the defective camera means a store can’t do a bad job but that’s not a true! And if “it’s not possible for the store to develop those pictures improperly”, then the customer won’t have a basis to argue for her money back.

(D) If the customer handled the film incorrectly, that is what caused the photographs that the store developed to be unsatisfactory.
This is not a necessary assumption. Why? Because if there was another cause to the poor quality of the printed photographs, then it’s not 100% true that the store would owe her a refund…because it’s not the store’s fault.

(E) If the customer's claim was not correct, then the store does not owe her a refund.
This sounds good but there are actually multiple conditions where the store would owe her a refund. Even if the customer’s claim wasn’t correct…AS LONG AS THE PHOTOGRAPHS were produced in a poor manner, then the store would/should owe her a refund. As a result, this isn’t a necessary assumption for the main conclusion of the argument.