Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: PT32-1-17  (Read 319 times)

hellokelly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
    • Email
PT32-1-17
« on: May 23, 2010, 09:19:16 PM »
The answer here is D and I am not sure why.
I chose C here since I think it's irrelevant? Or C is correct b/c more accountants means higher chance to commit the embezzlement?
Then for D. I thought it attacks the first sentence in the stimulus. B/C the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records. what's wrong here?
thx!

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: PT32-1-17
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2010, 10:26:22 PM »
The answer here is D and I am not sure why.
I chose C here since I think it's irrelevant? Or C is correct b/c more accountants means higher chance to commit the embezzlement?

C is a pretty weak answer, but that's all that's needed to weaken.  It does show that we've got a larger pool of suspects among accountants, which is better than D does.

Quote
Then for D. I thought it attacks the first sentence in the stimulus. B/C the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records. what's wrong here?

Not sure what your analysis has to do with what D says--that a report concluded the corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.  Anyway, D is the EXCEPT answer because the fact that the corporation was vulnerable doesn't affect the conclusion, which is only about about whodunit.

hellokelly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: PT32-1-17
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2010, 11:41:20 PM »
thank you! the cat is so cute!! :)