hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Corporate analyst: Among employees at our firm who completed the optional wellness program last year, average productivity scores rose by 15 percent. Employees who did not enroll in the program showed no such increase. Clearly, then, requiring every employee to complete the wellness program would raise the firm's overall productivity by a comparable margin.
The analyst's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- overlooks that enrollees may have differed from non-enrollees in motivation, a trait that itself could drive the productivity gain
- takes for granted that the firm's productivity measurements were recorded with equal accuracy for both enrolled and non-enrolled employee groups
- presumes, with no supporting evidence at all, that non-enrolled employees would have actively resisted any mandatory version of the program
- concludes that mandatory enrollment would make every single employee's productivity increase by precisely fifteen percent
- fails to consider whether rival firms without any wellness program have nonetheless matched this firm's productivity gains
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?