hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Whenever the marketing department launches a new campaign, quarterly sales rise within two months. This quarter, sales rose within two months of the department's activity. It follows that the marketing department must have launched a new campaign, and that the rise in sales proves the campaign was well designed.
Which one of the following most accurately describes two flaws in the argument?
- It affirms the consequent of a conditional, and it treats one possible consequence of a cause as proof of that cause's quality.
- It relies on a sample of a single quarter, and it draws a causal claim from a correlation observed only one time before.
- It equivocates on what counts as a 'new' campaign, and it assumes marketing is the sole department affecting quarterly sales.
- It denies the antecedent of a conditional, and it presumes that sales figures reported by the department are inherently unreliable.
- It overlooks seasonal sales patterns entirely, and it assumes that quality campaigns always produce immediate revenue gains.
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 these statements?
- 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?