Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 17

Incorrect. This answer calls into question whether an actuary could have embezzled—they were closely monitored, after all—so it weakens the argument by undermining the Detective's explanation.

Incorrect. This answer supports an alternative explanation—it was actually external hackers who embezzled. It attacks the Detective's presumption that it must have been someone who worked at XYZ, weakening her argument.

Incorrect. If there are 4x as many accountants as actuaries, just by pure numbers, it'd be more likely that it was an accountant who embezzled than an actuary, weakening the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — XYZ had someone embezzle from them
Info — It was almost certainly either an actuary or accountant who worked there, but the evidence left behind (ledger errors) probably wouldn't have been left by the accountant
Explanation — It was probably an actuary who embezzled

Answer Anticipation:
The argument brings up a crime, some evidence, and then reaches a conclusion about the perpetrator. Whenever an argument concludes a particular explanation for a phenomenon (here, the phenomenon being the crime), it's generally ignoring other potential explanations. Let's look for any answer that supports an alternative theory or one that calls into question the provided one. Since this is a Bizarro Weaken question, there are going to be a lot of ways to weaken the argument, so let's focus our time on the answer choices instead of trying to anticipate many different weakeners.

Answer Explanation:
XYZ's vulnerability to embezzlement may explain that they did fall victim to the crime, but it doesn't support any particular theory as to who committed the crime. This answer therefore has no effect on the argument as is thus the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that conclude an explanation are almost always flawed because they ignore alternative explanations. And when an alternative is brought up in the stimulus, it's usually relevant to the correct answer. Or, as we saw here, several incorrect answers in a Bizarro question.

Incorrect. If the accountants could more easily access internal financial records than the actuaries could (e.g., ledgers), then that suggests it was an accountant who made those alterations that ultimately prove the embezzlement. This answer supports a different explanation—that an accountant committed the crime.