medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The company's revenue increased by 20 percent last year. Therefore, its profits must also have increased by 20 percent last year.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it
- treats two distinct financial measures as if they must move together, ignoring that the costs separating them can change
- takes for granted the very conclusion it sets out to establish, simply assuming that profits rose without offering support
- depends on revenue figures that the company itself supplied and that may therefore be unreliable or inflated
- overlooks the genuine chance that the company's total revenue might actually fall rather than rise in the coming year
- ignores that a 20 percent revenue jump is simply too large to be at all plausible for any single company in one year
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