The mayor has been accused of taking a bribe based on the fact that a consultant that does business with the city pai...

Irina on September 17, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir,

The argument tells us that the mayor is being investigated for bribery because a city consultant has paid for improvements to the mayor's vacation house. The mayor responds by saying that he paid for every bill that was presented to him. The key here is "that was presented to him," so if no one presented him most of the bills, it is not much of a defense.

(B) accurately points out this weakness, saying that the mayor was aware that many of the bills were not presented to him, thus he must have known that a consultant has paid these bills instead even though the mayor never saw them. This fact undermines the mayor's attempt to argue that he paid for improvements himself since he paid every bill he was presented with.

(A) is irrelevant to this particular defense. This fact would strengthen the conclusion that the consultant is probably guilty of a bribe, but in this particular case the consultant is being charged with paying for the vacation house, and the mayor argues that he paid all the bills instead. The fact that the consultant is being investigated in other jurisdictions has no impact on the mayor's defense alone and is therefore, incorrect.

Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.