medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Ten years ago, the average annual bonus at our firm was $15,000. This year, the average bonus has risen to $25,000. It follows that most employees are now receiving larger bonuses than they did ten years ago.
The argument is flawed because it overlooks the possibility that:
- A handful of unusually large bonuses can pull the average upward while the typical employee's bonus is unchanged.
- Inflation over the decade has eroded the real purchasing power that any given bonus amount represents.
- The firm's headcount may have dropped sharply over the same ten-year span.
- Employees today may simply be working more hours than employees did ten years ago.
- No employee at the firm has ever received a bonus larger than the current average figure.
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?