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 to the merger rather than assessing the merger's likely results
- uses the phrase 'operational costs' in two different senses across the argument
- draws a sweeping conclusion about all mergers from this single case
- takes the drop in operational costs as 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 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?