Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Argument Flaw Questions

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.

a conclusion is drawn based on research that was performed internally
it promotes taking an action solely based on the fact that similar organizations took the same action
it assumes a company's intentions without any evidence to point to those intentions
a recommendation is made without the consultation of a qualified expert
it does not take into account 18% of the T3-using companies