LSAT 148 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Five years ago, the hair dryer produced by the Wilson…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The Wilson Appliance Company’s hair dryer sales declined by half.

REASONING: The Wilson Appliance Company’s hair dryer market share declined by half.

ANALYSIS: This argument ignores the possibility that the market grew. If that’s the case, it’s possible that Wilson’s lost market share, but kept their sales volume exactly the same. E.g.

• 5 years ago: wilson = 50, rest of market = 50
• now: wilson = 50, rest of market = 150

___________

1. CORRECT. See the analysis above. This is exactly the flaw. Unless overall market size is unchanged, a market share change doesn’t necessarily mean sales changed.
2. We don’t need a full profit and loss report for the industry. The argument already said that net income per dryer stays the same. So, if sales fall by half then so would net income.
3. Other products don’t matter. The conclusion was only about hair dryers!
4. The argument literally says “and because the average net income….per hair dryer….has not changed.”
5. The argument didn’t say the hair dryer was one of the least profitable products! An answer can’t be the flaw if it didn’t happen in the argument.

Recap: The question begins with “Five years ago, the hair dryer produced”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. To practice more Flawed Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.