A completely new type of service that deals with optimizing the communication infrastructure within a business is being offered by companies that refer to themselves as "T3"s. Interested in the new service, Trawners Incorporated researched the topic and found that to date, of the thousands of companies using, or that have used, T3 services, 82% have business profiles similar to that of Trawners Incorporated. To improve its communication infrastructure, Trawners Incorporated should hire the services of a T3 company.
A major flaw in the argument above is that
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The research done by Trawners into the topic of T3's studied the market and therefore was not performed internally (that is, within Trawners Inc.). There is nothing illogical about the research presented in the argument - it provides solid data.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The argument assumes nothing about Trawners' intentions; these intentions are spelled out clearly in the premises since Trawners did the research, and are Interested in the new service.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]While a recommendation is definitely strengthened if it can be supported evidence given by an expert, not including such supporting data does not invalidate the conclusion. Remember, you are looking for a logical flaw, not means to correct such a flaw.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]Since the vast majority (82%) of the companies in Trawners' research resemble Trawners' own profile, the conclusion can be drawn logically based on this data. In fact, it would be illogical to draw any conclusion based on the minority of the companies in the research rather than the majority.
Fantastic work!
[[snippet]]Just because similar companies are using, or have used, T3's does not automatically mean that Trawners Incorporated will benefit from doing so. There is not even a premise in the argument that states a definite improvement resulting from the use of a T3. The recommendation is based only on the fact that other companies like Trawners hired a T3 company.