Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. First, this answer accuses the consultant of accepting bribes, not giving them. Second, this answer deals with the consultant, not the Mayor, and it doesn't address the bill issue.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Accusation: The consultant bribed you by paying for your vacation house renovation.
Defense: "I paid every bill I saw!"

Answer Anticipation:
Well, Mayor, what about the bills you didn't see? If the consultant "intercepted" these bills and paid them without the Mayor seeing them, then his defense falls apart.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights not only that there were bills the Mayor didn't see, but that he was aware that these bills were going to the consultant. That completely undermines his defense that he paid all the bills "that [were] presented to him." Sure, but you knew there were others paid by the consultant.

Key Takeaway:
Here, we were specifically tasked with addressing the Mayor's defense against the charges. Many of the answers didn't deal with the defense but rather with the overall situation. Be sure that you're using the question stems to guide your analysis of the answer choices!

Incorrect. The contractor isn't involved in the accusations, and there's no allegation that the Mayor is improperly using a certain contractor, just that he accepted bribes from a consultant.

Incorrect. The relevant information is who paid for the renovations, not how expensive they were. If they were more expensive than the Mayor could afford, then maybe this answer would be in scope.

Incorrect. While this answer may explain why the consultant would find it economically worthwhile to bribe the Mayor, it doesn't address the Mayor's defense to the charges.