The question-specific working supplied with the item states: The same positional rule must explain every row. Here the rule is to subtract the second number from the square of the first. Verification of Row 1: 9² - 8 = 73, exactly matching the given result. Verification of Row 2: 9² - 9 = 72, again matching the stated result, so the rule is consistent rather than a guess. Apply it unchanged to Row 3: 14² - 5 = 191. The other choices are incorrect: 192, 190 and 196 do not equal 14² - 5; each would break the rule already verified in both complete rows. A valid missing-number solution cannot switch operations only for the final row. Rechecking the first two examples and then independently recalculating the target row confirms the answer. This working identifies the relevant missing-number relation and connects the given information to the required result. After applying the verified rule, the required value or position is 191. The alternatives 192, 190 and 196 fail because each breaks at least one stated condition, transition, direction or arithmetic step. A plausible-looking option is not sufficient unless it reproduces the complete missing-number relation.
