October 2000 LSAT Section 1 Question 17

Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we ...

hfatima1 on August 1, 2020

can someone please explain why the answer is D? Does D strengthen the argument somewhat because it shows that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlements so it does not have to be necessarily be the actuaries?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on August 1, 2020

Hi @hfatima1,

Thanks for the question! Nope, (D) doesn’t strengthen the argument. But it doesn’t weaken the argument, and that’s all we need! This is a question that asks us for the answer choice that doesn’t weaken; in other words, it can strengthen, but it can also be irrelevant. And the argument is about how the embezzler is either an accountant or actuary, but accountants probably wouldn’t make the mistakes the embezzler made, so the embezzler’s probably an actuary. (D) then tells us that an independent report tells us before the XYZ Corp was vulnerable to embezzlement. What does that have to do with the argument about the embezzler being an actuary? Nothing. Because it’s irrelevant, it doesn’t weaken, and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.