PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 4
The mayor has been accused of taking a(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AAuthorities are investigating(10 more words not shown)
- BThe mayor was(17 more words not shown)
- CThe building contractor(18 more words not shown)
- DThe improvements to(15 more words not shown)
- EThe amount of(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Paying every bill that reached you isn't necessarily paying for the whole project. What happened to the bills that didn't reach you?
The consultant paid for improvements to the mayor's vacation house. That looks suspicious, especially because the consultant does business with the city. The mayor's carefully limited response doesn't explain why someone else was covering those costs. Imagine a bill going straight to the consultant: the mayor could still truthfully say he paid every bill presented to him.
What we’re looking for
I'd want to know what the mayor understood about that arrangement. A missing invoice isn't automatically an innocent explanation for accepting someone else's money. The question asks us to undermine this defense, so we should focus on whether paying the bills he received really answers the accusation.
Working the answers
- A
An investigation isn't proof that the consultant took bribes. And this is about the consultant receiving bribes from other officials, whereas the accusation here concerns the mayor accepting a benefit. It doesn't explain why the mayor's statement about the bills fails as a defense.
- BCorrect
The mayor knew that many bills were going to the consultant instead of to him. Now his statement looks evasive: he could pay every invoice that reached his desk while knowingly allowing the consultant to cover other invoices for the vacation house.
B doesn't show that the mayor lied about paying the bills presented to him. It shows why that narrow truth is not a good answer to the accusation. The mayor knew the arrangement included bills being sent elsewhere, so his payment of the bills he personally received doesn't clear up the concern about the consultant financing the improvements.
- C
The building contractor's past work for the city doesn't tell us who received or paid the vacation-house bills. Keep the roles separate: the contractor did the improvements, while the consultant paid for them. A prior city job for the contractor doesn't undermine the mayor's particular defense.
- D
Expensive materials and extensive labor make this a costly project. But a person could pay every bill for a costly project, just as a person could fail to pay for a cheap one. The size of the expense doesn't address the limit in the mayor's statement: which bills were actually presented to him?
- E
Large payments from the city could give the consultant a financial reason to keep the mayor happy. But that possible motive doesn't test the mayor's defense about his own bills. We still need to know why paying the invoices he received fails to answer the accusation. B directly exposes that problem.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.