This doesn’t impact the agent’s conclusion. Even if these clients made only slightly more than $100,000, they still increased their profits tenfold. Either way, he assumes that what’s true of his profitable clients is also true of all his clients.

The agent doesn’t explain why 10% of his profitable clients didn’t increase their profits tenfold, but he doesn’t need to. He only addresses those clients who did increase their profits tenfold, assuming that they’re representative of all his clients.

The agent concludes that all his clients increased their profits tenfold last year based on premises about his profitable clients. But what if he only had a few profitable clients? In that case, it’s not true that 90% of his clients increased their profits tenfold.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The marketing agent doesn’t make this mistake; his argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, he assumes that what is true of one subset of his clients is also true of all his clients.

The marketing agent actually allows for this possibility. 90% of his profitable clients made $100,000, but the other 10% might have made less than $10,000. Also, the clients that were not profitable certainly made less than $10,000 because they didn't make any profit at all.