October 2000 LSAT Section 1 Question 17

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

Elizabeth25 on October 1, 2023

weaken

can someone explain how each of the four answer incorrect answer choices actually weaken the answer choice. For B, it felt like it didn't weaken because it said "at the time of the embezzlement" which to me meant that the embezzlement was already in process when the people outside of xyz gained access.

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

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on October 4, 2023

A weakens because it gives us a reason to doubt that an actuary was the embezzler. It suggests that the actuaries were less likely to be able to get away with the embezzlement because they were under stricter scrutiny, which also means they may have been less likely to attempt it in the first place.

B weakens because it suggest that the embezzler was external, not an auditor or accountant. This I just saying that when the embezzlement occurred, they were vulnerable.

C weakens slightly by showing that 80 percent of the possible embezzlers were accountants, which makes it slightly less likely the culprit was an actuary.

E weakens by making it less likely an actuary had access than that an accountant has access.