LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Detective: Because the embezzler must have had…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception
CONCLUSION: It is likely that the embezzler was one of the actuaries.
REASONING: The embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records. Therefore the embezzler likely worked for the company as an accountant or an actuary. An accountant probably wouldn’t have made these ledger mistakes.
ANALYSIS: We want to weaken the idea that the embezzler had either of the following traits:
1. Actuary
2. Inside the company
There are many ways to do this. Since it’s an exception question, we’ll need four. It’s best to think of a few ways to weaken these possibilities before starting, but don’t worry if you can’t think of much.
Just use those two things as a frame to evaluate each answer choice.
___________
- This would have made it harder for an actuary to have embezzled. Particularly if they were making mistakes.
- This shows that it wasn’t necessarily someone from within the company.
- This weakens the argument very slightly by showing that there were only two possible actuary suspects. Such a small group is unlikely to have produced a criminal.
It’s more plausible that one of the eight accountants was incompetent enough to have made mistakes. - CORRECT. This warns of danger but it doesn’t tell us who committed the crime.
- This shows that accountants might have had an easier time than actuaries.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
How does answer choice D not weaken the argument? Being vulnerable to embezzlement means someone from outside the company could have been the culprit.
No it doesn’t. Embezzlement by definition means the source is internal. If you steal money from a company and don’t work there, then that is theft not embezzlement.
The argument is about which employee stole the money, not whether the embezzlement was internal to the company or not. Embezzlement *has* to be internal.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Is this the correct answer because it is the only one that doesn’t weaken the argument, even though it doesn’t strengthen it either?
Yup! No need to strengthen on this type of question. The only criterion is not weakening.