PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 17
Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized(58 more words not shown)
Each of the following weakens(4 more words not shown)
- AThe actuaries' activities(18 more words not shown)
- BThere is evidence(25 more words not shown)
- CXYZ Corporation employs(11 more words not shown)
- DAn independent report(14 more words not shown)
- ECertain security measures(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
At first, I can see why the detective looks toward the actuaries. The thief needed specialized knowledge and access to financial records, and an accountant would probably avoid the mistakes that exposed the crime.
But probably isn't never. An accountant could make a mistake. And why are accountants and actuaries the only people being considered? Someone else might have both the knowledge and the access. A company executive, for example, might belong on the list if those were the relevant qualifications.
The question asks for the answer that does not weaken the argument. That means four choices should give us reasons to be less confident that an actuary was responsible. I'd expect facts opening up other suspects or making accountants more plausible than the detective thinks. Perhaps these particular accountants are unusually prone to errors. Those possibilities keep us focused on who committed the crime.
What we’re looking for
For the exception, look for a fact that doesn't help with that comparison. Keep asking whether each new fact makes the detective's choice of suspect less convincing.
Working the answers
- A
Closer supervision could make it harder for an actuary to carry out the embezzlement without being noticed. That gives us a reason to question the detective's preference for that group. It doesn't prove an actuary couldn't do it; weaker evidence against that possibility still counts as weakening.
- B
The security breaches could have allowed outsiders to reach the records. That challenges the assumption that the access requirement confines the suspect pool to the company's accountants and actuaries. An outsider with the needed knowledge becomes another possibility. B weakens the narrowing of the investigation even though it doesn't identify a particular thief.
- C
There are four times as many accountants as actuaries. A mistake may be less likely for any one accountant, but there are more accountants who could have made it. The detective can't judge the two groups solely by how prone an individual member is to that error.
C doesn't prove an accountant is more likely to be responsible; we don't know the relevant probabilities. It does introduce a reason the larger group could still matter despite the lower individual likelihood of making the mistake.
- DCorrect
Knowing the company was vulnerable to embezzlement doesn't favor or disfavor the actuaries compared with the accountants or outsiders. We already know the crime occurred. This report gives no information about who had access, who had the knowledge, or who would make the revealing mistakes. It therefore doesn't weaken the particular conclusion about the culprit.
- E
The actuaries had a harder time accessing the financial records. Since access was required, that difference makes them less plausible suspects relative to accountants than the detective's account suggests. It challenges the conclusion without needing to establish that access was completely impossible.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.