Conclusion:One of the actuaries is embezzler.
To weaken we need to show thatactuaries are not embezzler .
This is an EXCEPTION question. So, we need to find out one option, which does not weaken the conclusion.
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, actuaries may not be embezzler
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time
...
To weaken we need to show thatactuaries are not embezzler .
This is an EXCEPTION question. So, we need to find out one option, which does not weaken the conclusion.
A. The actuaries' activities while working for XYZ corp were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of accountants. So, p(actuaries)<p(accountants). Therefore, actuaries may not be embezzler
B. There is evidence of breaches in computer security at the time
...
.jpg)
