LSAT Explanation PT 32, S1, Q17: Detective: Because the embezzler must have

LSAT Question Stem

Each of the following weakens the detective's argument EXCEPT: 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument presented in the passage. The detective is trying to determine the identity of the embezzler. The detective's argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: The embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records.

Intermediate Conclusion: The embezzler worked for XYZ Corporation as either an accountant or an actuary.

Premise 2: An accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement.

Conclusion: Thus, it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

The question type is a Weaken question, asking us to identify the answer choice that does NOT weaken the detective's argument. We will evaluate each answer choice to determine which one does not undermine the conclusion or the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

a) This answer choice weakens the argument by suggesting that actuaries were more closely monitored than accountants, making it less likely that an actuary would be the embezzler.

b) This answer choice weakens the argument by introducing the possibility that someone outside of XYZ Corporation could have accessed the internal financial records, thereby undermining the intermediate conclusion that the embezzler must be an accountant or an actuary.

c) This answer choice weakens the argument by providing information about the number of accountants and actuaries at XYZ Corporation. Since there are more accountants than actuaries, it could be argued that it is less likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries simply based on the numbers.

d) This is the correct answer. The independent report stating that XYZ Corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement does not directly weaken the detective's argument about the identity of the embezzler. It does not undermine any of the premises or the conclusion itself.

e) This answer choice weakens the argument by suggesting that it was more difficult for actuaries to access internal financial records than accountants, making it less likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

In summary, answer choice D is the correct answer, as it does not weaken the detective's argument about the identity of the embezzler.