Passage Summary: Drew got roses without a card. The author thinks the florist messed up because a friend would have sent violets and a stranger would have left a note.

Conclusion: The florist must have made a mistake, such as sending the wrong flowers or forgetting the card.

Reasoning: A close friend would have known Drew's preference for violets, and a stranger would have included a signed card; since neither happened, the florist is the likely culprit.

Analysis: The author's logic is a bit like a detective who only considers two suspects and then blames the butler when neither fits. It assumes that friends *always* act on their knowledge of preferences and that strangers *always* sign cards. To weaken this, we need an alternative explanation that doesn't involve a florist error. Perhaps a friend sent roses intentionally to be romantic, or maybe a stranger wanted to remain a 'secret admirer.' Look for an answer that breaks the rigid 'if-then' links the author has set up about how friends and strangers behave.