#17 - Detective: Because the embezzler must have had

[reop6780]

The correct answer is D while I chose C.

My problem is that they are too many contenders for this question.

For me, none of answer A, C,and D seem to weaken the argument.

A) why does it matter if actuaries' activities were more scrutinized than those of accountants?

Does it necessarily make embezzler make more mistakes?

C) Why does the number of actuaries matter? ..Really.. why?

[David Boyle]

The correct answer is D while I chose C.

My problem is that they are too many contenders for this question.

For me, none of answer A, C,and D seem to weaken the argument.

A) why does it matter if actuaries' activities were more scrutinized than those of accountants?

Does it necessarily make embezzler make more mistakes?

C) Why does the number of actuaries matter? ..Really.. why?

Hello reop6780,

For answer A, maybe the problem is that the accountants were given too little scrutiny by supervisors.

For answer C, in terms of probability, the more accountants there are, the more percentage chance there that one of them did it. There're only two actuaries, but eight accountants.

Hope this helps,
David

[anthonycarral]

I don’t understand how ‘C’ weakens the argument. If we’re basing the rationale off numbers alone, isn’t that an assumption we’re taught not to make. Yes, theoretically speaking, there is a bigger pool of accountants to f* up than there are actuaries, but in light of what we know to be already true of accountants (them being less likely to make that type of mistake), are we truly at liberty to reach a conclusion based on a purely statistical assumption; after all, the playing field is not level (accountants probably wont make the mistakes in the ledger) and the stimulus does not provide a qualitative standard of work for the actuaries. But I do believe that it is safe to infer that an actuary would be more likely to make that mistake since the stimulus is using the former as rationale to dismiss the accountant. The strength of the argument should not be swayed by numbers alone.
am I missing something? this one doesn’t sit well with me.

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be looking for a more destructive answer than needed here, Anthony. Focus on the conclusion - that it is more likely that an actuary did it than an accountant. Anything that weakens that, no matter how little, still weakens it. You're right that the numbers issue raised by answer C doesn't do much damage, but does it do some? I think so - the accountants outnumbering the actuaries 4 to 1, or even the fact that there are only 2 actuaries, should make you think that the likelihood that an actuary did it is slightly less than the author may have believed, based purely on the statistical odds. We don't have to destroy the argument, or even do major damage, to say we have weakened it - even the tiniest seed of doubt is typically enough.

If you don't like that approach, then consider this - on the LSAT we are in the business of picking the BEST answer (as opposed to the RIGHT answer or a GOOD answer). That means we want to pick the best of the bunch, no matter how awful it might be or how good another answer might be. Answer D here is the best of the bunch, because it has absolutely zero impact on the conclusion - it doesn't do anything to call into question the claim that an actuary is the more likely culprit. Since it does nothing to weaken the argument, and C might do at least a small amount of damage, D has to be the credited response and C has to be a loser. Don't focus on how bad an answer C is - instead, focus on how much better an answer D is. With that mindset you won't ever get caught up in nitpicking answers that you don't like, something we all can fall prey to now and then.

I hope that helps! Best of luck in your studies.

[EL16]

Hello,

I chose the correct answer here (D), but was having a difficult time choosing between A and D, and am looking for some guidance as to exactly why A is incorrect. As a weaken question, I knew to isolate the Detective's conclusion: "it is likely that the embezzler is an actuary". He concludes this from his reasoning that the embezzler must be an actuary or accountant, and accountants aren't as likely to make the mistakes that led to the discovery of embezzlement; therefore he must be an actuary.

A is saying that the actuaries make less mistakes than accountants, since actuaries were closely scrutinized, whereas accountants weren't. I don't see how this would weaken the detective's argument? If, in fact, accountants were NOT closely scrutinized and therefore were more likely to make mistakes, then wouldn't this strengthen the author's argument? It seems to align perfectly with what the author is saying: accountants less scrutinized = accountants make more mistakes than actuaries = embezzler is an actuary.

I understand why D does not weaken the argument, as it really has no effect on the argument itself, and therefore does NOT weaken the argument. However, I just can't seem to completely understand why A is incorrect.

Thank you!
Elana

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Elana,

Good question, and thanks for explaining your reasoning!

You correctly identified the conclusion that the embezzler was likely an actuary.

The key issue here is either to exploit some distinction between the actuaries and the accountants that makes the accountants more likely the culprits or to give evidence that it was some other party entirely.

Answer choice (A) creates a distinction between the actuaries and the accountants. The distinction here is that the actuaries were more closely watched than the accountants. In consideration of the rest of the evidence, what does this mean for the accountants. You could rephrase this answer choice as stating in effect that the accountants were not as closely watched as were the actuaries. The fact that the accountants were not as closely watched gives evidence that perhaps they, and not the actuaries, had the opportunity to commit the crime. Thus, answer choice (A) does weaken the conclusion.

Does this make sense?

[EL16]

Ah, I see! Thank you so much for explaining that!

[elewis10]

Could someone please explain why D is correct? I picked C, thinking that the fact that there were 8 accountants and 2 actuaries did not matter... I understand why C is wrong. But I don't see why D is correct. What does D have to do with actuaries vs. accountants? D does not strike me as having any impact at all on the stimulus.

Thanks very much, and I apologize if this is at all redundant.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Elewis10!

That's right, answer choice (D) does not have much to do with the argument at all!

The question stem told us that four of the answer choices weaken the argument. This means that the correct answer will either strengthen the argument, or simply not affect it in any meaningful way. Answer choice (D), as you pointed, out did not really affect the argument in any way.

Let me know if this helps!

[suburbsinmymindseye]

Hello!

I changed my answer to Question 17 as I reviewed my section before time ran out (wrongly, unfortunately).

Ultimately, I was stuck before answers D and C.

I thought that D) implied that since an independent report concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement, the idea that the embezzler must have had "specialized knowledge" was rendered false. Thus, I thought it weakened the argument.

Is this one of those situations where I must take the premise that "Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records," completely at face value without questioning it?

Or is it more that answer D doesn't actually undermine this premise anyway? As in, just because an independent org. knows that XYZ is vulnerable to embezzlement, doesn't necessarily mean specialized knowledge isn't required.