[attachimg]19645[/attachimg]
答案是D。
C为什么是削弱呢？好像无关嘛。
D，我觉得D也是削弱的，如果本来这个公司就是vulnerable to embezzlement，那么有可能产生B的情况。或者我想的不对，embezzlement仅限于内部人员吗？
1。我不喜欢C的削弱方式，不过也许正像LSAC人员说的一样，有时削弱或支持只有一点点。C通过对比ACCOUNTANTS和 ACTUARIES的差别（像原文）说明ACTURAY和ACCOUNTANT盗窃的可能性。C说ACCOUNTANTS人多，盗窃的几率也多（虽然他们可能不会留下痕迹）。C还特别用对比词WHEREAS，表对比。
2。D为无关。容易盗，则对所有人一样，因为原文看不出这些人在这方面的差别，即容易盗是否使一些人容易些，对一些人难些。
3。原文用的词是EMBEZZLER，故你说的内部外部人员的说法不对。
Agree with lawyer.
C points out that the number of accountants is more than that of the actuaries, and since both accountants and actuaries have access to the internal financial records, then, just by the numbers, the embezzlement was more likely committed by an accountant than an actuary. Therefore, C weakens the argument.
D points out that the company had already been considered vulnerable to embezzlement, therefore, somewhat strengthens the original argument. Embezzlement, per definition, "(actions) to appropriate (as property entrusted to one's care) fraudulently to one's own use", is more likely to be actions conducted by insiders. So, the independent report was more likely to be based on assessment of internal vulnerabilities.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |