Could you explain the flaw here and the correct answer choices?

@Henleys, Happy to help. Let's take a look. Looking at the stimulus, we know that a low percentage of service industry workers make it into the boardroom. From this, we see that the author concludes that a low percentage of board members come from the service industry. Let's use some numbers. What if there were 10 million service professionals, and what if 100,000 of these 10 million were board members? This would mean that 1% of service industry professionals are board members. This is a small percentage. However,r what if there are a total of 100,000 board member positions in North America. If this were true, then this would mean that 1% of service professionals make up all (100%) of the board members in the 600 largest North American companies. This would mean that service professionals would not be underrepresented in this hypothetical. The problem with this argument is that it's assuming that percentages carry over. Just because a certain group of people is a small percentage of one group DOES NOT mean that they are also a small percentage of another group. This is the flaw of the argument. (B) says, "The percentage of people from the service professions who serve on the boards of the 600 largest North American corporations reveals little about the percentage of the members of these boards who are from the service professions." (B) looks great. The author is comparing two groups (service industry professionals and board room members) and is trying to conclude the composition of one group by making the assumption that it was the same as the composition of the other group. Thus, (B) is the correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

This helps! Thank you!

@Henleys, let us know if you have any other questions!