Q4 - The mayor has been accused of taking a bribe

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
The mayor paid all the bills that he was given, so he can't be considered to have taken a bribe.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice that qualification - "that was presented to him." Oh, Mayor, trying to weasel out of a crime based on a technicality! The mayor could still be guilty if he knew there were other bills that were mysteriously being taken care of.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Two reasons here. First, just because someone is guilty of a similar crime doesn't make it more likely they committed one here. Second, the argument is accusing the mayor of taking the bribe; this answer is about the consultant taking bribes.

(B) J'accuse! This answer plays with the qualification the mayor gave in his defense. If the mayor knew there were other bills being covered by the consultant, his defense falls apart.

(C) Out of scope. The building contractor isn't involved in any suggested shenanigans.

(D) Out of scope. The value of the goods isn't at issue; who paid for it is.

(E) Out of scope. This answer is trying to get you to think that it made sense for the consultant to bribe someone. However, this doesn't make the consultant guilty (maybe she was just lucky), and it certainly doesn't speak to the mayor's culpability.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When an argument is accusing someone of something, be sure that the answer choice deals with their actions, not someone else's.

#officialexplanation