medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Researcher: The overall productivity of our department has risen by 15% since we adopted the new software. It follows that every employee in the department is now 15% more productive than before.
The researcher's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- trades on two distinct and incompatible meanings of the term "productivity" in moving from premise to conclusion.
- relies on a small and unrepresentative sample of employees that is likely to misrepresent the department as a whole.
- infers that a feature of a group taken as a whole must also be a feature of each individual part of that group.
- ignores the obvious possibility that departmental productivity would have risen even had the software never been adopted.
- concludes, without any cost comparison, that the software is the most cost-effective tool the department could pick.
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