Critical Reasoning

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.
Which of the following identifies a flaw in the logical coherence of the statement above?

A If overall sales for Company X were sharply reduced, the New Hampshire Division's new sales record is irrelevant to the company's prosperity.
B Since the division is competing against its own record, the comparison of its sales record with that of other divisions is irrelevant.
C If this is the first year that the New Hampshire Division has been last in sales among Company X's divisions, the new record is not surprising at all.
D If overall sales for Company X were greater than usual, it is not surprising that the New Hampshire Division was last in sales.
E Since the New Hampshire Division has the smallest potential market, it is not surprising that it had the lowest sales.

B

the stimulus says "New Hampshire Division of Co X, set a new record for annual sales by that division" ie against its own records. it then goes on to compare the divisions record to the other divisions sales.

B brings out this flaw

B..... reason : same as above..

What is wrong with C.

don't attack the conclusion, attack the reasoning behind it..
C is exact opposite of the above.

But we do not have to attack the conclusion, we need to look for a flaw in the argument.

Isnt C a flaw?

ketkoag is right, we must not attack the conclusion in flaw in the reasoning

for finding a flaw we need to find an error in the reasoning ie, the way the conclusion is reached given the premises.
C doesnt bring out any error in reasoning, it just negates the conclusion

hmmm got it. Thanks guys for participating.

I must admit that c seems to be the answer. What's OA?