Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q17 Detective: Because the embezzler must

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for XYZ Corporation as either an accountant or an actuary.

Conclusion

The embezzler is probably one of the actuaries.

Evidence

The embezzler must have had specialized knowledge / access to financial records, so

Intermediate Conclusion

The embezzler must have been an accountant or an actuary.

More Evidence

But an accountant probably wouldn't make the mistakes in ledger entries that gave away the crime.

Evaluate

The author is trying to solve the causal mystery of who embezzled, so we could use a Curious Fact / Explanation template:

Curious Fact: who is the embezzler? Author's Story: it's probably an actuary.

We can weaken either of two ways: 1. suggest a different explanation for who the embezzler is 2. hurt the plausibility of the author's explanation

Goal

Look for an answer saying that people other than accountants and actuaries had specialized knowledge and access to records (which introduces an alternative explanation for who the embezzler might be).

Look for an answer talking about the ledger entries and either making it seem like an accountant might easily have made those mistakes, or make it seem like an actuary likely wouldn't make those mistakes.

17.

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

  1. The actuaries’ activities while working

    Hurts Author's Explanation

    This makes it less likely that actuaries would have dared to commit the crime, since they were subject to much greater oversight.

    5% picked this

  2. There is evidence of breaches

    Suggests Alternate Explanation

    This attacks the author's intermediate conclusion, suggesting that the perpetrator didn't need to work for XYZ Corp at all; they might have hacked in.

    5% picked this

  3. XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants,

    Hurts Author's Explanation

    Haha, this is a funny LSAT answer. Just boring math. If you were randomly picking from the author's 10 suspects (an accountant or actuary who works at XYZ), there's an 80% chance the embezzler is an accountant, and only a 20% chance it's an actuary.

    33% picked this

  4. Correct

    An independent report released before

    Why this is right

    This has no impact on solving the causal mystery. It just says we were warned a crime might be committed, but this doesn't tip our suspicion in either direction (accountant, actuary, or other).

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    54% picked this

  5. Certain security measures at XYZ

    Hurts Author's Explanation

    This makes it less plausible that the actuaries did it, since they had to jump through more security hoops than the accountants did to get at the internal financial records.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free