Detective: Because the embezzler must

Answer choices

1. A

   Hurts Author's Explanation4% picked this

   The actuaries’ activities while working for XYZ Corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the

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

   4%
2. B

   Suggests Alternate Explanation5% picked this

   There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of the embezzlement that could have given persons outside XYZ Corporation

   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%
3. C

   Hurts Author's Explanation33% picked this

   XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants, whereas it has only two actuaries

   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%
4. D

   Correct54% picked this

   An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ Corporation was

   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%
5. E

   Hurts Author's Explanation4% picked this

   Certain security measures at XYZ Corporation made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial

   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%