One in 1,000 licensed traders will eventually be convicted

I go with E here.

The argument makes a connection with the number of people convicted with the level of corruption. I think C makes a specific reference to those with MBAs, but what about the other employees (non MBAs). Additionally, I also think this might even strengthen the argument because it reinforces the corelation between convictions and corruption.

E clearly states that there's simply no corelation. I might be wrong, please post your views.

Leaning over E.
Choice is between C and E.
C seems less effective in weakening the argument by not accounting for Non-MBA's.

I wud go with E

Y not C: In this option, he's jus speakin about a small pool of employees,i.e; MBAs. So that cannot be applied for the whole population

Go E!

Will go with E.

Chose C after reading it but changed my mind after reading choice E and the passage.


"This record clearly indicates that traders at Salamen are approximately 8 times as corrupt as traders at other trading firms."

Note traders at Salamen are being compared with traders of other firms on the basis of 8 persons convicted of wrong doings.
E directly attacks this casual correlation.

One in 1,000 licensed traders will eventually be convicted of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. Over the last five years, 8 of the 1,000 traders at Salamen, a top trading firm, have been convicted of such violations. This record clearly indicates that traders at Salamen are approximately 8 times as corrupt as traders at other trading firms.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

A) Salamen hires from business schools with the highest quality of graduates and the most scrupulous standards.

B) The Securities and Exchange Commission is far more likely to investigate trading firms than other businesses.

C) A greater number of the Salamen employees with MBAs investigated for possible violations of the Securities and Exchange Act were cleared of all wrong-doing than were their counterparts at other trading firms.

D) Most of the employees of Salamen are scrupulously honest and would not intentionally act in such a way as to violate a regulation such as the Securities and Exchange Act.

E) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

A) Not relevant
B) There is no intended comparison btw traders and other businesses in the original argument, instead the comparison is btw traders @ Salamen and in other "trading" companies.
C) Defintely doesnt weaken the conclusion, instead seems to be in a way strengthening the conclusion by stating that the number of convictions is still 8 times that in other trading companies, inspite of many of the employees @ Salamen being exonerated evenutally.
D) Not Relevant
E) Correct. Even though the only one in 1,000 are said to be convicted "eventually" of corruption, could still mean, remaining corrupt people were just not convicted, say for lack of evidence. Doesnt digress and doesnt bring in extraneous reasons, unlike the case in options (A and D)

E it is...

I didn't read all the choices at first and selected C Only realized when I compared notes with the others...

good point... did not think about the non-MBA's...
I did not think of it that way... though I did come down to C or E...
made the wrong answer choice.

I go with E.

C was close but deals with only MBA, but what about me:) I don't have that degree yet.

E) The level of corruption of individuals on a staff is not directly related to the proportion of these individuals who have been convicted of corrupt behavior.

Straight E.. negate this premise and you will see that conclusion is strengthened..

OA is E

nice explanations here!!!