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?

Correct answer marked below

It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.

It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

Correct

It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.

It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.

It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Explanation

Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.

Comments

Be the first to share your thoughts and help others understand it better.

What this question tests

Whether you can explain an apparent contradiction in a way that makes both facts true.

Picking an option that explains one side of the paradox while making the other side false.