LSAT 117 – Section 3 – Question 17

LSAT 117 - Section 3 - Question 17

October 2004

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:56

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT117 S3 Q17
+LR
+Exp
Except +Exc
Weaken +Weak
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
3%
159
B
5%
160
C
34%
165
D
54%
168
E
4%
157
152
164
177
 +Hardest 146.848 +SubsectionMedium

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. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the embezzler is like one of the actuaries at XYZ Corporation. This is because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge about financial records, and the author believes this proves the embezzler was either an accountant or an actuary at XYZ. And, the author believes the embezzler was unlikely to be an accountant, because the ledger mistakes that led to the discovery of the embezzlement probably wouldn’t have been made by an accountant.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that only accountants or actuaries at XYZ would have had the specialized knowledge necessary to do the embezzlement. The author also assumes that an actuary isn’t just as unlikely as an accountant is to make the kind of mistake that led to the discovery of the embezzlement.

A
The actuaries’ activities while working for XYZ Corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of the accountants.
This provides a reason to think actuaries are less likely than accountants are to have committed the embezzlement. If actuaries’ activities were more closely scrutinized, that suggests it was more difficult for them to cheat.
B
There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time of the embezzlement that could have given persons outside of XYZ Corporation access to internal financial records.
This questions the assumption that only an actuary or accountant at XYZ could have had the specialized knowledge to commit the embezzlement. If someone outside XYZ could have had that knowledge, then the suspects don’t have to be limited in the way the author assumes.
C
XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants, whereas it has only two actuaries on its staff.
Maybe each accountant had only a 49% chance of making the mistake that led to the discovery. But if there are 8 accountants, collectively the chance of one of those accountants making the mistake might be higher than the chance one of the two actuaries made the mistake.
D
An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ Corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.
This doesn’t provide any reason to think the embezzler isn’t one of the actuaries. (D) helps establish that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement, but doesn’t suggest anything about what kind of person could have been the embezzler. (Correct because this is an EXCEPT question.)
E
Certain security measures at XYZ Corporation made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants.
This provides a reason to think actuaries are less likely than accountants are to have committed the embezzlement.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 117 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply