Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]
27 Sep 2003, 10:23
0% (00:00) correct
99% (01:52) wrong based on 7 sessions
23. Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.
The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true?
(A) Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers.
(B) Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success in prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault.
(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading.
(D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater fro publicly defended than for privately defended defendants.
(E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accused of ┬б┬░victimless┬б┬▒ crimes or crimes against property.
My rationale: the argument boils down to—expensive private lawyers are the reason for a low conviction rate among financial criminals.
We have to strengthen this assertion. How to strengthen? Prove that there are no other reasons. D says that two groups initially have equal chances to be convicted, so expensive lawyers are the reason for a lower rate among the group of financial criminals.