About 5 years ago, gaming consoles made by SONY accounted for 50 percent of all sales of the gaming console market worldwide. Currently, however, SONY makes up only 25 percent of such sales. Because of this decline, and because the average net income that SONY receives per console sold has not changed over the last 5 years, the company’s net income from sales of the product must be only half of what it was 5 years ago.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

1. Mistakes a decline in the market share of SONY’s console for a decline in the total sales of that product
2. Does not provide specific information about the profits console generate for the companies that produce them
3. Fails to discuss sales figures for SONY’s products other than its consoles
4. Overlooks the possibility that the retail price of SONY’s console may have increased over the past 3 years
5. Provides no independent evidence that SONY’s console is one of the company’s least profitable products

OA: A

Summary of the argument: The passage does mention that the SONY’s product makes up only 25 percent of sales currently, and the average net income that SONY receives per console sold has not changed over the last 5 years. We can say that the sales have not exactly declined if they are able to maintain the average net income. so we have to find a point which validates why their net income is stable

1. Exactly, 25% decrease can be in market share but that doesn’t necessarily state that their sales also decreased. Hence, this is the right answer.
2. We don’t need a profit level for all the companies that produce them, we just need to prove that sales didn’t drop. Hence eliminated.
3. Other products of SONY are irrelevant for the argument. Hence eliminated.
4. The information in this option is not enough to validate the stability of net income of SONY. Hence eliminated.
5. If this is true the net revenue would have decreased, not stabilized, so it is out of context. Hence eliminated.