medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A business consultant states: the recent merger will either increase our market share or reduce our operational costs. Since our operational costs have already begun to drop, we should not expect any increase in market share.
The reasoning in the consultant's argument is flawed because it
- assumes the two favorable results are mutually exclusive when the merger could in fact deliver both
- criticizes the parties who arranged the merger rather than assessing the merger's likely future results
- relies on the phrase 'operational costs' in two subtly different senses at separate points in the argument
- draws a sweeping conclusion about the likely outcome of all corporate mergers from this single case
- treats the early drop in operational costs as decisive proof that the merger has been a success overall
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