Explanation
In the salesperson's argument, they are making a recommendation based on a customer's specific need—cleaning small areas of uncarpeted floors. The salesperson concludes that for this particular need, an inexpensive handheld vacuum cleaner is likely sufficient. The argument implicitly relies on the assumption that the recommended product is suitable for the most common types of flooring that the consumer would encounter.
A. (Correct Response) If we assume that the only types of floor surfaces that most consumers encounter are carpet, wood, and tile, then the salesperson's recommendation of an inexpensive handheld vacuum cleaner being sufficient for uncarpeted floors (wood and tile) makes sense. This assumption supports the argument by narrowing the scope of flooring types that the vacuum needs to be effective on.
B. This statement is about carpeted floors, which is not the focus of the salesperson's conclusion that specifically mentions uncarpeted floors.
C. The cost and ease of use of the vacuum cleaner are not at issue in the salesperson's conclusion, which is about the vacuum cleaner's sufficiency for the task.
D. While this statement is related to the need for a vacuum cleaner, it does not support the salesperson's specific conclusion about the sufficiency of an inexpensive handheld vacuum cleaner for uncarpeted floors.
E. The argument is about the sufficiency of the vacuum cleaner for a particular task, not about the relationship between versatility and expense.
By assuming that consumers primarily encounter carpet, wood, and tile, the argument by the salesperson is supported under the premise that the product recommended is indeed suitable for the majority of common flooring types, thus making it a likely sufficient choice.