LR Question: Oct '00 LR 1 # 17 (Detective) Forum

[3|ink]

Is it just me or are some of these LR questions really poorly written? I'll admit that I take a while to wrap my head around some of them, but this one is pretty stupid.

The correct answer is easy enough to see. However, one of the wrong answers is impossible to rule out. This is problematic because this is an EXCEPT question stem.

My problem is with 'C'. How does C weaken the argument at all? Even if there were more accountants than actuaries at XYZ, that does not make it more likely that an accountant was responsible. This answer choice does nothing to challenge the last premise regarding the mistakes on the ledger. At best this answer choice says that among 10 suspects it is more likely that 1 of 8 committed the act than 1 of 2. That's way too weak to make a valid inference when the stimulus clearly states that the mistakes were not likely to be committed by an accountant.

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and tell me what I'm missing?

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Is it just me or are some of these LR questions really poorly written? I'll admit that I take a while to wrap my head around some of them, but this one is pretty stupid.

The correct answer is easy enough to see. However, one of the wrong answers is impossible to rule out. This is problematic because this is an EXCEPT question stem.

My problem is with 'C'. How does C weaken the argument at all? Even if there were more accountants than actuaries at XYZ, that does not make it more likely that an accountant was responsible. This answer choice does nothing to challenge the last premise regarding the mistakes on the ledger. At best this answer choice says that among 10 suspects it is more likely that 1 of 8 committed the act than 1 of 2. That's way too weak to make a valid inference when the stimulus clearly states that the mistakes were not likely to be committed by an accountant.

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and tell me what I'm missing?

While C doesn't do a great job of weakening the argument, it does still weaken it. Keep in mind this question deals with probabilities, not certainties. If the last premise used stronger language to state that an account would not make such mistakes, then you would be right and C would do nothing to the argument. Since we are dealing with probabilities though, stacking the numbers in favor of the accountants CAN effect the probabilities. If an answer choice can lessen the probability of the embezzler being an actuary, then it counts as a weakener.

While C can certainly be quibbled over, keep in mind that D is an obvious answer. D does nothing whatsoever to weaken this argument.

[LawPlz]

Hmm, I chose C too. The stimulus stated that the person responsible was most likely from company XYZ because only they would have access to the information etc. But wouldn't answer D possibly weaken this by saying that "the company was vulnerable to embezzlement", possibly implying that outsiders may be able to access this information? Or am I just reading this incorrectly?

[Audio Technica Guy]

which preptest # is this?

[cord]

Is it just me or are some of these LR questions really poorly written? I'll admit that I take a while to wrap my head around some of them, but this one is pretty stupid.

The correct answer is easy enough to see. However, one of the wrong answers is impossible to rule out. This is problematic because this is an EXCEPT question stem.

My problem is with 'C'. How does C weaken the argument at all? Even if there were more accountants than actuaries at XYZ, that does not make it more likely that an accountant was responsible. This answer choice does nothing to challenge the last premise regarding the mistakes on the ledger. At best this answer choice says that among 10 suspects it is more likely that 1 of 8 committed the act than 1 of 2. That's way too weak to make a valid inference when the stimulus clearly states that the mistakes were not likely to be committed by an accountant.

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and tell me what I'm missing?

While C doesn't do a great job of weakening the argument, it does still weaken it. Keep in mind this question deals with probabilities, not certainties. If the last premise used stronger language to state that an account would not make such mistakes, then you would be right and C would do nothing to the argument. Since we are dealing with probabilities though, stacking the numbers in favor of the accountants CAN effect the probabilities. If an answer choice can lessen the probability of the embezzler being an actuary, then it counts as a weakener.

While C can certainly be quibbled over, keep in mind that D is an obvious answer. D does nothing whatsoever to weaken this argument.

Id argue it exactly as Richie.

[3|ink]

Is it just me or are some of these LR questions really poorly written? I'll admit that I take a while to wrap my head around some of them, but this one is pretty stupid.

The correct answer is easy enough to see. However, one of the wrong answers is impossible to rule out. This is problematic because this is an EXCEPT question stem.

My problem is with 'C'. How does C weaken the argument at all? Even if there were more accountants than actuaries at XYZ, that does not make it more likely that an accountant was responsible. This answer choice does nothing to challenge the last premise regarding the mistakes on the ledger. At best this answer choice says that among 10 suspects it is more likely that 1 of 8 committed the act than 1 of 2. That's way too weak to make a valid inference when the stimulus clearly states that the mistakes were not likely to be committed by an accountant.

Can anyone please put me out of my misery and tell me what I'm missing?

While C doesn't do a great job of weakening the argument, it does still weaken it. Keep in mind this question deals with probabilities, not certainties. If the last premise used stronger language to state that an account would not make such mistakes, then you would be right and C would do nothing to the argument. Since we are dealing with probabilities though, stacking the numbers in favor of the accountants CAN effect the probabilities. If an answer choice can lessen the probability of the embezzler being an actuary, then it counts as a weakener.

While C can certainly be quibbled over, keep in mind that D is an obvious answer. D does nothing whatsoever to weaken this argument.

Thank you. I realize it's a wishy-washy conclusion, but C is an unusually poorly written answer choice for a Test as recent as 2000. D is a very obvious answer, but C is so poorly written that I was forced to second-guess myself and waste time. Perhaps C does weaken the argument because it is more likely that the culprit was 1 of 8 than 1 of 2. However, this paradigm seems unprecedented.