pt 70, s.4, q. 15, Letter to the Editor: you say that if...
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:42 am
I am wondering whether my reasoning for eliminating (A) and (B) is justified.
They both claim that the burglar in question must directly compensate the people they victimized, but in the stimulus it states that it would go to a fund that I am interpreting to be a general fund of victims of burglary everywhere and not necessarily directly to the people who are victimized.
So basically my logic is that since they stimulus never states that the burglar should directly compensate the exact people he stole from, both of these can be eliminated.
Thoughts? Manhattan forums is saying a different reason why, and I'm not quite sure if that is because this reasoning is not good.
They both claim that the burglar in question must directly compensate the people they victimized, but in the stimulus it states that it would go to a fund that I am interpreting to be a general fund of victims of burglary everywhere and not necessarily directly to the people who are victimized.
So basically my logic is that since they stimulus never states that the burglar should directly compensate the exact people he stole from, both of these can be eliminated.
Thoughts? Manhattan forums is saying a different reason why, and I'm not quite sure if that is because this reasoning is not good.