medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Either the company must increase its prices or it must lay off employees to remain profitable. Since the CEO has announced that there will be no price increases this year, the company will definitely have to lay off employees.
The argument's reasoning is questionable because it
- presents only two routes to profitability when other viable routes may well exist.
- confuses a condition that is necessary with one that is sufficient.
- fails to show that raising prices would in fact restore the company to profitability.
- assumes that staying profitable is the company's sole objective.
- infers that layoffs are unavoidable because no one has ruled them out.
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?