|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Detective: Because the embezzler must have had specialized [#permalink]
 04 Sep 2005, 19:15
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
Each of the following weakens the dectective's argument EXCEPT:
A) The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ Corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors that were the activities of the accountants.
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
C) XYZ Corporation employs eight acccountants, wehreas it has only two actuaries on its staff.
D) An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ Corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement
E) Certain security measures at XYZ Corporation made it difficult for the acturaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I would choose C. 'coz its the only statement that doesn't weaken the stem. All the others, in some sense, weaken it. C, however, is unrealted to the arguments (as far as I see).
Views/suggestions invited.
Krishna
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 84
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
i take A. coz it implies that the actuaries had been proved to be making errors, due to more scrutinization.
whats the ans?
_________________
------------------------------
only if i could choose....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 17
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I also agree with C.
I think if the actuaries are more closely supervised, they will be more careful and will try not to make errors. Also, they should be scared to embezzle since they can get caught easily because of the close supervision. This would eliminate A. The only left is C since all the other answers weaken the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
A) would weaken the theory because it would be difficult fo the actuary to do anything illegal if their work are closely scrutinized
B) would weaken the theory as it says someone else besides the actuary can access the records
D) if an independent report was made, it means other people had access to the information. This will weaken the arguement
E) will wekaen the theory as well as it says actuaries will have to go to a lot of trouble just to get access to the information
C is the best chioce. Knowing that there are more accountants than actuaries does not challenge the theory sufficiently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 335
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
C for me too.
GA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 87
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
should be c
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 462
Location: New York
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
C for me.
All other answer choices provides the possibility that someone else committed the crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 258
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
C again here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I picked AC C too. However, the OA is D. The material is legit and so is the OA.
Any OE on why the OA is D? This is LSAT material [Next 10 LSAT PrepTests]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Anyone? Him, Ban, Ritesh_gupta1, chris, AJB or anyone else??
Can someone explain how the OA is D?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1741
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I can see now how OA is D now. But I would surely pick C.
Let me try to explain:
A.The actuaries' activities were more closely scrutinized so they have the least possibilty of commiting the embazlement. so it Weakens.
B. No doubt it weakens
C. 8 accountants and only two actuaries.... means actuaries has less possibilty of commiting the embazlement. so it Weakens.
D. The fact that a report says XYZ is vulnarable doesn't mean it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries. so it doesn't weaken the conclusion[/b]
E. No doubt it weakens
_________________
hey ya......
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I also got C.
But agree with nakib77 on choice C's explaination.
For D, I think it does not weaken because vulnerability does not say much such as who, when, why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 714
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
