LSAT 32, Logical Reasoning I, Q17, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Detective: Because the embezzler must have had…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception

CONCLUSION: It is likely that the embezzler was one of the actuaries.

REASONING: The embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records. Therefore the embezzler likely worked for the company as an accountant or an actuary. An accountant probably wouldn’t have made these ledger mistakes. 

ANALYSIS: We want to weaken the idea that the embezzler had either of the following traits:

1. Actuary
2. Inside the company

There are many ways to do this. Since it’s an exception question, we’ll need four. It’s best to think of a few ways to weaken these possibilities before starting, but don’t worry if you can’t think of much.

Just use those two things as a frame to evaluate each answer choice. 

___________

1. This would have made it harder for an actuary to have embezzled. Particularly if they were making mistakes. 
2. This shows that it wasn’t necessarily someone from within the company. 
3. This weakens the argument very slightly by showing that there were only two possible actuary suspects. Such a small group is unlikely to have produced a criminal.
   It’s more plausible that one of the eight accountants was incompetent enough to have made mistakes.
4. CORRECT. This warns of danger but it doesn’t tell us who committed the crime. 
5. This shows that accountants might have had an easier time than actuaries. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---