Critical Reasoning

Mainline Airways was bought by its employees six years ago. Three years ago, Mainline hired QualiCo Advertising Agency to handle its promotions and advertising division. Today Mainline's profits are over 20 percent higher than they were five years ago and 10 percent higher than they were three years ago. Employee ownership and a good advertising agency have combined to make Mainline more profitable.
Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?
(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline's profits, on the other.
(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.

OA A
My reasoning for B ,
Conclusion: employee owned company is more profitable because of Employee ownership and advertising agency.
It makes a comparison here and doesn't provide any data of other airlines.I can say market is doing better and can be the reason for better performance.
Am i missing something?

A: change of ownership and hiring of QualiCo has not been shown any connection with higher profit company is making year after year. But argument concludes with employee ownership and good advertising is making Mainline profitable. But where is the reason behind this.

B: this argument is not only about the employee ownership making the company profitable but also about the hiring of QualiCo. Together they make the company profitable.

abhi0697 wrote:A: change of ownership and hiring of QualiCo has not been shown any connection with higher profit company is making year after year. But argument concludes with employee ownership and good advertising is making Mainline profitable. But where is the reason behind this.

B: this argument is not only about the employee ownership making the company profitable but also about the hiring of QualiCo. Together they make the company profitable.

Thanks Abhi,

I dont negate your explanation of A. But i think B is still better than A.

IMO "employee owned company" refers to the company as such( it qualify the new company after employee ownership , which includes QualiCo).

Any comments?

why do you need ecvidence abt how employee owned companeis work in general? i.e better than or worse than previous.
this may just as well be a one off case.
maybe the general trend is MOSTLY(assume 90%) employee owned airlines do no tfare better.our company may well fall into the 10% category.

sandy217 wrote:

abhi0697 wrote:A: change of ownership and hiring of QualiCo has not been shown any connection with higher profit company is making year after year. But argument concludes with employee ownership and good advertising is making Mainline profitable. But where is the reason behind this.

B: this argument is not only about the employee ownership making the company profitable but also about the hiring of QualiCo. Together they make the company profitable.

Thanks Abhi,

I dont negate your explanation of A. But i think B is still better than A.

IMO "employee owned company" refers to the company as such( it qualify the new company after employee ownership , which includes QualiCo).

Any comments?

I don't feel that A is the right answer, but after ruling out all other option, A is the best available option left.

employees bought MA in 2000, in 2003 MA hired agency to handle its promotions and ads
2006, MA profit is 20 % higher than in 2001 and 10 % higher in 2003

employee and agnecy helped MA to become profitable

Which of the following best describes the weak point in the argument above?

(A) It fails to establish a causal connection between the change in ownership at Mainline Airways and the hiring of QualiCo, on the one hand, and the rise in Mainline's profits, on the other.

(B) It presents no evidence showing that employee-owned airlines are any more profitable than other airlines.
first there is comparison with other airways which is irrelevant , secondly, it says any more profitable, the argument is only concerned with the 6 years when the company was profitable.

(C) It assumes that the profits of Mainline Airways will continue to rise.
irreleavant as talks about future
(D) It gives no exact figures for the current profits of Mainline Airways.
figures are given but it will not help to weaken the argument
(E) It fails to explain how the profits of Mainline Airways are calculated.
irrelevant