The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator def

Official Explanation

The lobbyist presents a self-contradictory argument. He says

I. he left the house with no money

II. he spent all his cash on lunch

If he truly left the house with no money, he would not have had cash to spend on lunch. Both of these statements can't be true simultaneously. Yet, both of them are presented as evidence to the claim "I didn't bribe the senator."

(B) is the credited answer. Two pieces of evidence contradict each other. That's precisely the problem with this argument.

(A) is not correct. The conclusion, "I could not have bribed the senator" is not paraphrase of anything said previously in the argument.

(C) is not correct; there is no problem with time relationship --- leaving house, then having lunch, then seeing the senator. The "effect" for which he is arguing happens last, and the reputed causes happen before it: that is the proper time sequence for a causal chain.

(D) is not correct; each piece of evidence, by itself, would support the conclusion; they just contradict each other.

(E) is a wonderful distractor. Here, bribery is both a financial matter and a legal matter, so there is no confusion: consideration from both the financial and the legal spheres are appropriate.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.