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 new policy must have been implemented from the mere observation that revenue increased
- draws a sweeping conclusion about all future revenue from a single isolated observation about the policy
- compares the new policy to an unrelated rival policy that is not in fact genuinely similar to it at all
- assumes that any increase in revenue produced would have to be permanent rather than merely temporary
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