Even if a crime that has been committed by computer is discovered and

I agree with D as well.

We are concerned with being arrested and sentenced.

You can be arrested and sentenced to something other than jail time.

I will try to explain why it is D.

D is the only answer that does not effect the odds of being both arrested and convicted.

Answer A effects the odds of being convicted by showing that computer fraud cases needs more time than average fraud cases. This somewhat supports the passage.

Answer D does not effect the odd of being arrested and convicted. This statement only shows what usually happens to convicted computer criminals.

I hope that helps.

Hey All,

Plenty of good discussion going on here, and I think Ekin really nailed it at the end. I just wanted to pop in here (taking all the credit), and make sure everybody learns the lesson from this question. Whenever you start thinking that there's some kind of subtle gradations of meaning going on (and you're really torn between a couple of answer choices), take another look at the EXACT words in the premise, and the EXACT words in the conclusion. Odds are they differ.

In this case, we don't have a premise in the argument, because the premises are the answer choices themselves. Notice how we're asked to support THE CLAIM in this question, which means we're going to stay really close to what's written.

Then, as Ekin says, answer choice A, for all it's weirdness, directly relates to arrests (because somebody has to make the case before anyone will be arrested), where as D only relates to sentencing. Those little words will kill you if you're not careful. So be careful!

-t

I AGREE!
the argument says that even when the computer crimes are discovered and reported, the actions of arresting and convicting them have some obstacles that prevent these crimes from the touch of authorities. All choices A,B,C,E directly relate to some obstacles of arresting and convicting which all strengthen the argument.
(A): computer crimes are not likely be convicted
(B): computer crimes are not likely be arrested
(C): same as (B)
E): same as A
Only D talk about the sentencing activity which comes after crimes are arested and convicted.

Can some one please explain why B is incorrect?

zac123, our goal is to weaken our argument. Now, (B) is saying that the officers don't have enough time to learn the ropes. So, if this is the case, this would strengthen the idea that criminals would get away more of the time.

Does this make sense?

(A) states that the police officers do no have the incentive to work on Computer crime cases as they take more time and in turn, decrease their productivity rating. This decreases the possibility of them arresting them and convicting them.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi zac123,

My 2cents.

In B, if most of the police are frequently rotated into different assignments within few years, so the officers who currently deal with the computer crime might seem to be inexperienced, and they are unlikely to be good enough at computer-crime investigation. Therefore, the odds of being both arrested and convicted are probably low.

Hope it help.

We are looking for a statement that does not give us a reason as to why computer crime is less likely to result in a criminal sentence.

Every AC but "D" gives us arguments why computer crime is less likely to get the criminal arrested;

Lack of proficiency, time and focus on the law enforcement site are what most arguments mention.

However, "D" speaks about prison sentences and therefore does not tell us anything about the likelihood of a conviction.
Keep in mind: Severity of punishment does not equal likelihood of punishment

(A) The preparation of computer-fraud cases takes much more time than is required for average fraud cases, and the productivity of prosecutors is evaluated by the number of good cases made- it takes a long time to create the case. Hence possibility of arrest and conviction is reduced

(B) In most police departments, officers are rotated through different assignments every two or three years, a shorter time than it takes to become proficient as a computer-crime investigator- if officer is rotated, the case might never get solved or get delayed as there is lack of proficient officers who understand the computer-crime

(C) The priorities of local police departments, under whose jurisdiction most computer crime falls, are weighted toward visible street crime that communities perceive as threatening- computer crime might not receive enough importance to get solved

(D) Computer criminals have rarely been sentenced to serve time in prison, because prisons are overcrowded with violent criminals and drug offenders- It talks about the scenario which happens after successful arrest and conviction

(E) The many police officers who are untrained in computers often inadvertently destroy the physical evidence of computer crime- destroying evidence reduces possibility of criminal getting arrested.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.