Passage Summary: A customer thinks a jewelry store should give them a refund for a broken watch because department stores follow that rule, even though the jewelry store isn't a department store.

Conclusion: Bingham's Jewelry Store is obligated to provide a refund for the broken watch.

Reasoning: Department stores refund watches that break after proper use, and the consumer's watch from Bingham's broke the day after purchase despite being used correctly.

Analysis: The argument relies on a 'Gap' between the behavior of department stores and the obligations of a specific jewelry store. To make this argument work, we must assume that the 'reasonable standard' mentioned applies to Bingham's despite it not being a department store. Look for an answer that establishes that the refund policy for department stores is a general rule that should apply to other types of retailers as well. If the rule only applies to department stores, the consumer's conclusion has no legs to stand on.