medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An analyst argues: If we implement the new policy, revenue will increase. We did not implement the new policy. Therefore, revenue will not increase.
The reasoning in the analyst's argument is flawed because the argument
- treats the new policy as the only thing that could possibly raise revenue, when other factors might do so
- concludes that the policy was implemented from the observation that revenue increased
- draws a broad conclusion about all revenue from a single observation about the policy
- compares the new policy to an unrelated policy that is not genuinely similar to it
- assumes that any increase in revenue would have to be permanent rather than temporary
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?