Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. This argues against the claim that “criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.” If many street criminals can afford high-priced attorneys, then according to the passage they too should have a low conviction rate.

(B) No. The passage argues that high-priced attorneys get the embezzlers off, whereas this answer-choice provides an alternative explanation: it is the incompetence of the prosecutors that get the embezzlers off.

(C) No. The relevant figure is the percentage of criminals convicted of street crimes versus criminals convicted of embezzlement, not the absolute number. There may be many more street criminals than embezzlers.

(D) Yes. The underlying premise of the argument is that the percentage of people in either group who are actually guilty is the same. Perhaps nearly all the people who rely on court-appointed public defenders are actually guilty, but few of the people who hire private lawyers are actually guilty.

(E) No. The passage argues that the lesser quality of public defenders causes the higher conviction rate of their clients. This answer-choice argues that a different factor is responsible—juries’ sympathy for the victims of street criminals.
_________________

I would go for "D" as it would be necessary to know the percentage of people who actually have committed the crime in both the categoeis, then only it could be established if the money can save the defendants of one category.

Going with B on this one.
_________________

D for this.. Rest of them weaken the argument

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

We need to make the argument more persuasive i.e we have to establish that expensive private defense lawyers are the primary cause of lower conviction among criminals who commit lucrative crimes.

Option A is weakens the argument. If both street criminals and criminals who commit lucrative crimes can afford expensive lawyers then we cannot conclusively say that expensive private defense lawyers are the primary cause of lower conviction among criminals who commit lucrative crimes.

Option B gives another reason for higher conviction rate among street criminals. Again, this choice weakens the argument that expensive private defense lawyers are the primary cause of lower conviction among criminals who commit lucrative crimes.

Option C talks about the number of criminals convicted. It does not help us strengthen our case that expensive private defense lawyers are the primary cause of lower conviction among criminals who commit lucrative crimes.

Option E gives another reason for higher conviction rate among street criminals. Eliminate for same reason as Option B.

Answer: D

my logic for D-

the percentage of publicly defended criminals and percentage of privately defended criminals do not vary from each other at large and that's how we can be more persuasive about the private lawyers being the reason behind lower conviction rate among the criminals committing lucrative crimes.

reason behind other options
Option A- Weakens
Option B- prosecutor incompetency is the reason-Weaken
Option C- weaken
Option E- Weaken

(D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of (i think it should be for instead of of)which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than ..................
I have doubts on the grammar used for option D.

"Accuse of" is the correct idiom (though I'm not sure how that's going to help you on CR!). Consider the following example:

Mike was accused of trespassing on a private beach. - Correct
Mike was accused for trespassing on a private beach. - Incorrect

That is why they use "of" and not "for" in choice (D). The structure is a bit different, but the idiom is the same.
_________________

In this example the explanation is that it's the expensive private defense attorneys that get these criminals off the hook. The observed phenomenon is the lower conviction rate for people accused of committing lucrative crimes.

This question asks us to strengthen the argument, so we're seeking an answer choice that eliminates a competing explanation.

(A) is irrelevant because it doesn't tell us about why people are not getting convicted.
(B) weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation. It's not the expensive private defense attorney, but rather the incompetent prosecutor.
(C) is irrelevant. The number of criminals in each category is not important, but rather the conviction rate for each.
(D) strengthens the argument by eliminating a competing explanation - that it's not the defense attorneys but rather that these people actually didn't commit the crime.
(E) is irrelevant. The distinction is between street crimes and lucrative crimes, and not violent vs. nonviolent crimes.
_________________

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. --Still the number of "expensive" crimes not convicted can be greater than the number of "street" crimes not convicted.

(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. --This weakens the argument

(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. --Still the total of respective categories can be opposite of what is given in the argument.

(D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended defendants. --Correct. If the sample of criminals is same then the argument holds.

(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 “victimless” crimes or crimes against property. --Weakens the argument

I don't understand the Option 'D' at all.
How is it established whether the accused has committed the crime at all? It can only be by conviction. Otherwise, the accused is innocent.
By saying that the percentage of convicts is same for publicly defended as for privately defended, how does that strengthen the argument? It should mean that the conviction rate is same for both types of defences, thereby weakening the argument.

Hi,

Option D says even though the actual rate of crime committed by publicly defended is "equal to or less than" that by the privately defended, the conviction rate is higher for the former. That means private lawyers are more successful in saving their defendants from being convicted. Hence, it strengthens the argument.

the explanation use statistical data in its argument so we need to find an answer that is related to statistical data too. Only D fits this requirement. According to the premise, the percentage of conviction of high class crimes is much lower than that of street criminals. The induction from the statistical data in the premise is much stronger now to arrive at the conclusion when we know that the percentage of actual commitment of crime is the same between high class crime and street criminals

I missed this one. Isn't 'make more persuasive' a strengthening question? I chose B because it gives us another reason to believe the conclusion.
_________________

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.
_________________