well, what would be the pragmatic consequences if it were?
The problem is that the premises are about percentages, while the conclusion is about raw numbers. What we know is that the PERCENTAGE of those unemployed has definitely gone down under power ranger leadership, but we don't know what the change has been in the total population. So lets say that the population started at 100 people, and that unemployment was 41% (we know that team rocket dropped unemployment by OVER 40%) This would leave 41 people unemployed. Now, lets say that in the ten years since the power rangers took office, the population has risen to 10,000. Assuming that the power rangers brought the unemployment rate down to 2%, this would still leave 200 people unemployed, a much greater NUMBER of people, which is what the conclusion is about here.
The LSAT loves to play this game of moving from %s to raw numbers.
ok i thought this was a flaw of percentage to numbers, but the answer was "flaw is that the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion."
Maybe it's old. I'll have to check with him on that.U talking about Mr. Blonde? He must be a lucky old man.Weird...I don't have that one either