In each question below is given a statement followed by three assumptions…

Concept: In a Statement-and-Assumption question, an assumption is something the statement takes for granted without stating it outright. Apply the negation test — if denying a candidate assumption would undermine why the statement is being made at all, it is implicit; if the statement still makes complete sense without it, it is not.

Application: The statement is an advertisement addressed specifically to intelligent people, promising to improve their performance. An advertisement is written with intent - its wording is chosen to get real people to respond. Casting the pitch specifically around 'if you are intelligent' only serves that intent if intelligent people are, in fact, the kind of audience inclined to consider a coaching programme on being addressed this way; deny that inclination, and phrasing the advertisement around intelligence achieves nothing for the advertiser. The advertiser is also promising performance improvement as its main draw, which only makes sense if coaching of this kind is capable of improving performance in the first place - deny that, and the whole promise collapses. Neither point needs any claim about competing institutes.

• Pairing the intelligent-audience premise with the performance-improvement premise: both have to be taken for granted for the advertisement's wording and its central claim to make sense.

• Pairing the performance-improvement premise with a claim that no other institute offers such coaching: the competitor claim adds something the advertisement's pitch never actually needs.

• Pairing the intelligent-audience premise with the same competitor claim: again, nothing about rival institutes is required for the pitch to hold together.

• Treating every one of the three as necessary over-reaches in the same way, by also requiring the unnecessary competitor claim.

Cross-check: the competitor claim fails the negation test in every pairing that includes it, which rules out three of the four listed combinations in one stroke. That leaves exactly one combination standing - the one that pairs the intelligent-audience premise with the performance-improvement premise and drops the competitor claim entirely, confirming it independently of the reasoning above.

Result: Only the intelligent-audience premise and the performance-improvement premise are implicit; the claim about no other institute offering such coaching goes beyond what the advertisement needs.