请教两道LR题目

chasingd2012

都是2000年10月的题目：

1、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 detective's argument except:

（其他选项都明显错误，只是C\D两个选项有点不太明白）
C. XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants, whereas 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.

正确答案选的是D. 但不太明白C是怎么weaken的，以及个人认为D也可以weaken, 如果XYZ Corp. was vulnerable to embezzlement，那么embezzlement或许就不需要太专业的知识，其他人也可以为之？

2. Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. In Hallstown most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Therefore, in Hallstown most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.

Which one of the following arguments has a flawed pattern of reasoning most like the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

正确答案是D. It is clear that most people in Highland County drive sedans and most people in Highland County commute to work. 但这个选项好像并没有reasoning的过程。。。？（其他选项貌似也没有，都是以it is clear开头，直接说一个结论啊。。=.="""）

placid

第一题，，按题目解释，更有可能是actuary犯案。但是c选项，总共10人，accountant有8人，actuary才2人，按人数比例而言，8人的accountant更有可能犯案，因而weaken了。d选项更象一个中性的陈述感觉。

第二题正确答案与题目一样，没有必然逻辑，以偏概全，或者反之，导致缺陷。大多数人1个月3次买grocery，买的是frozen dinner，就推定hallstown1个月三次买的grocery就是frozen dinner。选项d大多数人开sedans，就推定乘车上下班，不合逻辑。

凭直觉是这么理解的。。。。