#17 - Detective: Because the embezzler must have had

[Jeremy Press]

Hi suburbs,

It's a good question! Answer choice D as stated doesn't actually undermine the idea that the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge. A vulnerability to embezzlement might simply mean a vulnerability to embezzlement by specialists. Think of it this way: a company might have a computer system that is vulnerable to hacking. Does that mean that it's vulnerable to hacking by anyone? Not necessarily. The vulnerability might simply be vulnerability to those who know how to get the job done.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Jay]

Dear Powerscore

Hello. I carefully looked at the past responses, but allow me to bother you again with additional questions..

I learned that in EXCEPT questions like this, when we see an answer choice that is hard to determine whether it strengthens or weakens depending on what assumptions we make, it is correct answer.

For (C), depending on what assumptions we make, the answer choice could either strengthen or weaken the argument. Of course if we assume that "the more people there are, it is more likely that embezzlement can occur because of simple math (probability perspective)", then (C) surely weakens the argument.

However, if we were to assume that the more people there are, it is less likely that embezzlement can occur because the larger pool means there are more surveilants. Because there are 8 accounts in total, the other seven innocent accounts will act as the overwatchers , whereas, for actuaries, there are only two , meaning there is only one person monitoring the other one.

Therefore, depending on which assumptions we make, the answer choice can either strengthen or weaken the argument, which was why I chose (C).

Please help!

Thank you

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jay,

It's a very good question!

A couple considerations for you:

First, even if you can theoretically read answer choice C's impact on the conclusion different ways using different assumptions, you'll still have to overcome the fact that there is no set of assumptions under which answer choice D has any impact on the argument's conclusion. Some report's conclusion that the company had a vulnerability to embezzlement doesn't make it any more or less likely that any particular employee committed the embezzlement.

Since there's no way for answer choice D to have an impact on the conclusion, here's what you should think for answer choice C: is there a fairly simple set of reasonable assumptions (in other words, the simple probability perspective you raise) under which this answer choice would weaken the conclusion? Yes. Thus, answer choice C is a better weaken answer than answer choice D.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[PresidentLSAT]

The more I read D, the likeliness it becomes a strengthener for me. If a 3rd-party source has confirmed their vulnerability to embezzlement, it is fair game that the two groups susceptible to do it are the suspects-and the author has already ruled out accountants. What makes the actuaries sooo special not to do it if it's been confirmed that the company is vulnerable to such activity.

MY take away from this question is that probability is a form of a weakner-though I'm not sure how I will be able to spot a question like this next time.

I chose C because I didn't think the distribution of labor had any impact on performance What if the company's need for accountants and actuaries are 11 and 1 respectively? In this case, the accountants are the one who are understaffed-but the argument establishes the activity as everything but an accident.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

The big problem with answer choice (D), president, is that it doesn't address the conclusion at all. The conclusion of this states that it was most likely one of the actuaries. The company's vulnerability to embezzlement generally doesn't tell us anything about who it was that most likely embezzled funds. So that answer choice ends up as the correct answer, having no impact on the argument.

Answer choice (C) on the other hand, does impact the conclusion. If we are trying to see if something was done by an actuary or an accountant, it matters how many suspects we have in each group. It's more likely, given no other information, that the group with more suspects would hold the embezzler. In this case, it says that the accountant group size is 4x that of the actuaries. That's a huge disparity, and it would make it less likely that an actuary was the culprit.

Hope that helps!

[Adam354]

1) Answer B weakens the argument, and states that "There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of the embezzlement that could have given persons outside of XYZ Corporation access to internal records.

If the information in answer B CAN be true, that means the presumption that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corporation is not 100% reliable.

Therefore, answer C does not weaken the the argument at all, being that it could have been anyone out of a million accountants or actuaries not working for the company, based on answer B showing us that the presumption if not 100%.

This also would have affected D, since, if a report released to the whole world that the company was vulnerable, then of course anyone could have hacked the information.

SO my question is this: Are we supposed to assume a questions' presumption is valid, even when the test writers' themselves do not?

Anyway I've learned from this. If I just disregard information found in questions that I have to include in a "all could be true except" type question, then D would have been the obvious answer.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Adam,

I would argue that the statement about presuming that the embezzler worked for XYZ is an intermediate conclusion. It is used to support the main conclusion, but it's not really a premise because the author admits it's something that is likely to be true but hasn't been proven. The best way to weaken an argument is to weaken the main conclusion, but you can also weaken an intermediate conclusion.

The problem with answer choice (D) is that the report just said XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement, it did not disclose any specific information that could have been used to breach security. Also, embezzlement means that someone who had control of the money abused that responsibility by diverting money. If the money was just straight stolen by an outside party it wouldn't be embezzlement, it would be larceny. I don't know if the author of this question really expected you to know that given that they included answer choice (B), but when you consider that information, answer choice (D) really just makes no sense. It's like if a report came out that ABC company is vulnerable to insider trading.

I hope that helps!
Beth