Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: LR - October 2000  (Read 378 times)

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
LR - October 2000
« on: September 28, 2004, 09:47:36 PM »
A pretty average test overall.  One question, that while I got it right, I had difficulty choosing... Try it out.

Detective: B/c the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corp. as either an accountant or an actuary.  But an accountant wouldn;t have made the mistakes in the ledger entries that led to the discovery of the the embezzlment.  Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

Each of the following weakens the argument EXCEPT:

A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ were more closely watched than were the activities of the accountants.

B.  There is evidence that the embezzlement could have come from outside XYZ Corp.

C.  XYZ employs 8 accountants, whereas it has only 2 actuaries.

D.  An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement.

E.  Certain security measures made it more difficult for actuaries to have internal financial records than accountants.



While the answer is obvious, it seems that one of the other choices doesn't weaken it so well....

AaronJ

  • Guest
Re: LR - October 2000
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2004, 09:53:12 PM »
D is irrelevant completely because we already know that they were vulnerable to embezzlement.  It does nothing to implicate accountants over acturaries nor does it create a shadow of doubt that an actuary could have been guilty.  All the other answer choices do.

If you are reffering to C, C tends to suggest that a greater number of accountants could make detection more difficult.  Or, perhaps one out of the eight accountants is new and thus could have made such a mistake whereas having only one accountant makes it much easier to say "no accountant could have made that mistake".

robbief

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Right?
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LR - October 2000
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2004, 10:11:22 PM »
Yes, it's what I'm referring to.  I figured it had to be D, but looking over it afterwards, I couldn't concretely think of why C was relevant.

Thanks.

AaronJ

  • Guest
Re: LR - October 2000
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2004, 10:59:11 PM »
Yes, it's what I'm referring to.  I figured it had to be D, but looking over it afterwards, I couldn't concretely think of why C was relevant.

Thanks.

The thing to remember is that you only need to cast the slightest amount of doubt on the arguement to weaken it.  It doesnt have to be much.