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 steadily eroded the real purchasing power that any given nominal bonus amount holds.
- The firm's total headcount may have dropped so sharply over the same ten-year span as to distort the comparison.
- Employees today may simply be working far more hours to earn those bonuses than employees did a full decade earlier.
- No employee anywhere at the firm has ever, in its entire history, received a bonus larger than the current average.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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