This one showcases an ever-important theme in Critical Reasoning. Whether it's a classic Strengthen or Weaken (in which case specificity in the wording of the conclusion is super important) or a "resolves the paradox" question like here (where the precision in wording in the "surprising fact" is super important), when the conclusion or surprising fact includes "extra" language (modifiers, adjectives), pay extra attention to that!

Here the surprising fact is the first sentence (the second sentence alerts you to that by saying "this is surprising, because" in reference to the first). And look at the extra modifier at the end:

This year the New Hampshire Division of Company X, set a new record for annual sales by that division.

This should signal that what's really important here isn't "New Hampshire set a record" but that it's a very specific record...it's not a global record, company record, etc. - it's a record for that particular branch. For this reason, it doesn't matter whether it's the smallest or largest branch in the company...we're only comparing New Hampshire to itself. So the fact that it's smaller than the other branches doesn't make "it set its own individual branch record" surprising. (Just like if I run the 100 meters in the fastest time I've ever run it, it doesn't matter that Usain Bolt would have beaten me by 10 seconds...if it's my personal best, it only matters what I've done).

So that's why (B) is correct, but more important is that big lesson - when the conclusion (or surprising fact) includes "extra" information in the form of a modifier or adjective, that extra information usually tips you off to what's most important for that problem.
_________________

The information we are given is that the New Hampshire Division set a new record for annual sales "by that division." What was accomplished then, is simply an increase in that division's sales relative to its previous years. It is therefore not surprising, because an increase in sales has nothing to do with its potential market nor its annual sales relative to other divisions. The flaw here is a lack of relevance, so answer is B.

The paragraph seems to praise New Hampshire divisons sales despite being small and with limited market.
The question needs to find out the argument which contravenes the para..
Option B which says New Hampshires sales are- irrelavant is right choice.

Posted from my mobile device

Could you please explain why it can't be D?

Plz explain this ques in detail.

Let me try to help you with this question-

This year the New Hampshire Division of Company X, set a new record for annual sales by that division. This record is especially surprising since the New Hampshire Division has the smallest potential market and the lowest sales of any of Company X's divisions.

It says that new division (say A) of the company has set a new record for annual sales---> this means the sales of division has increased
The second statement says that increase in sales of new division A is surprising because that division has the smallest potential market and has lowest sales when compared to other company X's divisions.

Think, how can both statement be true at same time?
The only way possible is that statement 2 is be possible with statement 1 because statement 1 is making comparison between its last sales and its current sales(there has been an increase in sales)

Hope this helps!

From my point of view,

Overall greater sales mean that some division may play very well and some may not play well or like previous.
And, It is stated in the question that NH has smallest potential market.

So, when a small market potential division does well, it is really surprising that when some of other divisons are like previous, NH does beat its past with smallest market potential.

So, D is wrong.

If it helps, give a .

Posted from my mobile device

I identified this question as a Find the Flaw in the reasoning type question.

As such, he author provides a fact regarding this 1 small division which generally has low sales and a small potential market. This year, this division beat its own record of sales. (Assume the worst scenario: every prior year they made 1 dollar in sales this year they made 2 dollars in sales. Heyea!!!)


The author then claims that this is a “surprising result.” Why does he think it’s surprising? Because the division has the smallest market and lowest sales COMPARED with all the other divisions

The author observed that the worst division (in terms of sales) beat its own record. He finds this surprising BECAUSE it is the worst division with the smallest market. This analysis seems like a reasoning error. We should only care how this worst division fared compared with ITSELF. Concluding that this is surprising by comparing the division with all the other better divisions is not a sound argument. As shown above, would it really be surprising if the lowest-sales division beat its own record by $1???

I think the analogy to racing and Usain Bolt is perfect. Say you usually run the 200 yard dash in 2 hours, the worst time in the country. If you then beat your own record and ran the 100 yard dash in 1 hour and 50 minutes, would it be logical for me to say “wow, that’s surprising, because you are a much slower runner than many other olympic runners, such as Usain Bolt.”

If I were to say “wow, that’s surprising because this is a much better time COMPARED with YOUR previous times”, then perhaps the logic behind the “surprise” would be more sound.

-D- seems wrong to me because the question is asking you you to look for the Flaw in the author’s reasoning with regard to the situation laid out in the passage. Whether the entire company has higher overall sales or not is not relevant to the flaw in logic in our given fact scenario.

Answer B

Posted from my mobile device