This argument relies on an analogy. it says that because there is a relationship between gray rabbits and rabbits that the same relationship holds between suspected criminals and actual criminals. The difference here is that "gray rabbits" describes characteristics that exist rather than ones that are merely thought to exist. But being a "suspected criminal" does NOT actually imply that one is a criminal. So the analogy doesn't work, and this is a common error of reasoning that you will see on the LSAT. We're asked to Identify the Flaw, and so ideally we'd like an answer choice to address the issue of an inappropriate analogy.
Well the reasoning is wrong because just because someone is a SUSPECTED criminal, that doesn’t mean they are actually a criminal. They could actually be innocent.
On the other hand, all gray rabbits are actually rabbits, or else they wouldn’t be called gray “rabbits”.
The label associated with the rabbits, “gray” is concrete and proven, whereas the label “suspected criminal” isn’t concrete as it has yet to be proven true or false.
The formula for an average rate of return is derived by dividing the average annual net earnings after taxes or return on the investment by the original investment or the average investment during the life of the project and then expressed in terms of percentage.
