Last year, Scienterrific doubled its research and development budget,

If something happens in X, doesn’t mean it should happen in Y

The argument assumes this flaw.


A : irrelevant: the core meaning of argument is that Fantascientific can increase its profits similarly like Scienterrific
B: Yes , this could be flaw but it’s not a good option. We don’t know double or three times profit can end the market shared. Hence reject

C: Correct: matches our pre-thinking. Whatever happens in X doesn’t mean would happen in Y.

D: It is little diverted point as the core meaning of argument if something happens in X , doesn’t mean would happen in Y. D option talks about same thought with alternate in option Y. Hence can be rejected.

E:Even if same services, still it is not necessary to do the comparison

Hence C is the final answer.

Scienterrific doubled its research and development budget, and nearly doubled its profit.
Fantascientific should triple its research and development budget, and in this way, significantly increase its profitability.

A major flaw in the argument above is that it clearly believes that the profit of Scienterrific was a result of doubling its research and development budget.


C. the reason for the increase in Scienterrific's profitability is not necessarily its investment in research and development

C matches with our pre thinking.
IMO C

It's barely an argument, so it has dozens of flaws. I think at least two answers are justifiable here. Just because one company profited by increasing its research budget does not mean another company will, so C is right. D though is also a good answer. The argument says what the company should do. If the company's goal is to maximize profits, then, since the company presumably can only spend a finite amount, to decide what the company should do, we need to know which expenditures will produce the most profit. If spending all the available money on the Marketing budget will increase profitability tenfold, but spending it all on the R+D budget will only double profitability, the company obviously shouldn't spend it all on the R+D budget. Or at least they shouldn't if their goal is to increase profitability by as much as possible. So D is certainly relevant to the argument, as it's worded, because the argument is about what the company should do, and we need to compare all of the company's options if that's the conclusion.

The argument says that A ate protien and won the race so B should eat more protien and he will win the race.

Not the best comparison but you get the point. Lets look at options which help you identify why the reasoning is flawed.

A. Fantascientific plans to triple, rather than double, its research and development budget. So if we translate this option to our hypothetical scenario it means that you know what A ate twice the amount of protien so maybe that's the key. Doesn't make sense. Eliminate.

B. it assumes that the market can grow endlessly Market growth has got nothing to do with profitability in the context of this question. Eliminate.

C. the reason for the increase in Scienterrific's profitability is not necessarily its investment in research and development Make the comparison to our hypothetical scenario again. The argument says maybe protien isn't necessarily the reason for winning. Hmm, makes sense. Keep.

D. it ignores the possibility that investing in other departments of Fantascientific may improve profitability more than investing in the research and development department Again, compare with the race scenario. It says that we are ignoring the possibility that B may do better at race by exercising. Fair. But it doesn't tell us why the premise isn't correct. Eliminate

E. it fails to mention anything about the services that the two companies offer. Clearly out of scope. Eliminate.

Ans B