Detective: People who repeatedly commit

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct75% picked this

   The majority of people who commit embezzlement or bribery do

   Why this is right

   In 99% of cases, the word “most” is wrong on Necessary Assumption. But in this case, the idea of “a majority / most people” is logically important because the conclusion is about “most people who commit embezzlement / bribery”. In fact, we could even have thought to ourselves, “There’s a New Term in the conclusion! It’s talking about most people who commit embezzlement / bribery, but the evidence never defines or discusses that group. Therefore, this new term should be in my correct answer.” If we negate this, it’s saying, “Most people who commit these two crimes do not do so repeatedly.” Why would that weaken? Because … the trigger that starts this whole causal chain is motion is the idea in the first sentence that if you repeatedly commit these crimes and don’t get caught, you’ll end up being more confident, which will lead to commit these crimes again, which will keep increasing the odds that you eventually get caught. But if most people who commit these two crimes only do so once, then the author doesn’t get that causal chain he’s envisioning, in which the repeat offender keeps increasing the odds of being caught. If most people who commit these crimes do so only once, then they can just commit the crime, not get caught, and be done. Thus, they are not likely to eventually get caught.

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

   75%
2. B

   Relative vs. Absolute3% picked this

   People who commit embezzlement or bribery tend to be people who

   The argument was talking about becoming more confident than you were before, when you repeatedly commit embezzlement / bribery without being caught. It’s not saying that these people are confident in some absolute sense. If we negate this answer and say that people commit these crimes usually aren’t confident, that doesn’t hurt the argument at all. It would still be the case that repeatedly committing these crimes without getting busted would tend to make them more confident than before.

   3%
3. C

   Out of Scope: other crimes3% picked this

   Embezzlement and bribery are more likely to be solved than are many other

   There are no other crimes discussed in the argument, so the author hasn’t committed herself to any opinion on how solvable embezzlement / bribery are compared to other crimes.

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope: more careless16% picked this

   People who repeatedly commit embezzlement or bribery become more and more careless the longer

   This answer is tempting because it would explain why the more crimes they commit, the more likely they are to have one of their crimes solved. But this isn’t a necessary idea. If we negate this and say that they never get any more careless with repeated crimes, it doesn’t weaken the argument. The premise that “the more crimes they commit, the more likely one of those crimes will be solved” can be true even without them being careless. It might just be that the more a culprit pulls off a similar heist multiple times, the easier it becomes for law enforcement personnel to acquire clues / leads, or to understand the particular methodology of the criminal in order to anticipate their move next time.

   16%
5. E

   Too Strong: no one3% picked this

   No one who commits embezzlement or bribery is ever caught the

   The author certainly hasn’t committed to the very extreme claim that no one ever gets caught the first time. It doesn’t hurt the argument at all if some people get caught the first time. As long as most people don’t get caught the first time, the author can still make his argument that they will get more confident, commit more crimes, and keep increasing the likelihood that they will eventually be caught.

   3%