Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the embezzler is like one of the actuaries at XYZ Corporation. This is because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge about financial records, and the author believes this proves the embezzler was either an accountant or an actuary at XYZ. And, the author believes the embezzler was unlikely to be an accountant, because the ledger mistakes that led to the discovery of the embezzlement probably wouldn’t have been made by an accountant.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that only accountants or actuaries at XYZ would have had the specialized knowledge necessary to do the embezzlement. The author also assumes that an actuary isn’t just as unlikely as an accountant is to make the kind of mistake that led to the discovery of the embezzlement.
A
The actuaries’ activities while working for XYZ Corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of the accountants.
This provides a reason to think actuaries are less likely than accountants are to have committed the embezzlement. If actuaries’ activities were more closely scrutinized, that suggests it was more difficult for them to cheat.
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.
This questions the assumption that only an actuary or accountant at XYZ could have had the specialized knowledge to commit the embezzlement. If someone outside XYZ could have had that knowledge, then the suspects don’t have to be limited in the way the author assumes.
C
XYZ Corporation employs eight accountants, whereas it has only two actuaries on its staff.
Maybe each accountant had only a 49% chance of making the mistake that led to the discovery. But if there are 8 accountants, collectively the chance of one of those accountants making the mistake might be higher than the chance one of the two actuaries made the mistake.
D
An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that XYZ Corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.
This doesn’t provide any reason to think the embezzler isn’t one of the actuaries. (D) helps establish that XYZ was vulnerable to embezzlement, but doesn’t suggest anything about what kind of person could have been the embezzler. (Correct because this is an EXCEPT question.)
E
Certain security measures at XYZ Corporation made it more difficult for the actuaries to have access to internal financial records than for the accountants.
This provides a reason to think actuaries are less likely than accountants are to have committed the embezzlement.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that changes in sea temperature that seem small will result in declining fish and seabird populations. This conclusion is supported by a description of a causal chain: a temperature increase of two degrees prevents the vertical mixing of seawater, which prevents phytoplankton from having access to nutrients. Zooplankton consume phytoplankton, so these zooplankton lose their food source, and the rest of the food chain is based on zooplankton. So the seemingly minor temperature increase results in a loss in food for the entire food chain.
Identify Argument Part
The statement in the question stem demonstrates how the loss of nutrients for phytoplankton impacts food sources for the broader food chain. (Zooplankton consume phytoplankton, and everything else relies on zooplankton for nutrients).
A
It is a hypothesis supported by the fact that phytoplankton feed on upwelling nutrients.
The fact that zooplankton consume phytoplankton does not receive support from any other part of the argument; it is a premise that we accept at face value. Further, it is not a hypothesis; it is a premise that supports the conclusion.
B
It is intended to provide an example of the ways in which the vertical mixing of seawater affects feeding habits.
The claim in the question stem is a description of a general relationship that is used as a premise. Also, it is not about the impact on feeding habits; it is about food access. The zooplankton would still eat phytoplankton if they were available.
C
It helps show how global temperature changes affect larger sea animals indirectly.
The statement in the question stem connects zooplankton to phytoplankton. This connection is a link in the causal chain that more broadly connects temperature increases to declining populations of fish and seabirds, showing how temperature changes affect sea animal populations.
D
It is offered as one reason that global warming must be curtailed.
There is no value judgement in the argument; the argument does not give any recommendations for action.
E
It is offered in support of the idea that global warming poses a threat to all organisms.
This argument shows how global warming poses a threat to fish and seabird populations, not to all organisms generally. This answer choice is too broad.