The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the s

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
Followed by:1 members
The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.

I'm confused between B and D? Can any experts help?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:38 am
ardz24 wrote:The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.

I'm confused between B and D? Can any experts help?
Claim 1: I had no money with me all day
Claim 2: I spent all my money on lunch

If the lobbyist had no money on him, how could he have used money he didn't have to buy lunch? The second claim is inconsistent with the first. This is what B gives us.

D is wrong because while the two claims may not be consistent, they actually do support the same conclusion -> that the lobbyist had no money to give to the senator.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course