Quote:
Psychologists have asserted in the past that juries in murder cases are less likely to convict a suspect if the jury members know that there is a possibility that the suspect will be sentenced to death. However, this is not shown to be true in statistics. In State X, which has the death penalty, the conviction rate in murder cases is slightly over eighty percent. In State Y, which does not have the death penalty, the conviction rate in murder cases is seventy percent.
The argument above is flawed in that it ignores the possibility that
A. State Y has a larger number of murder cases than does State X.
B. State X has a larger number of murder cases than does State Y.
C. over seventy percent of the people who live in State Y oppose the death penalty.
D. the governor of State X is a former state prosecutor, is an outspoken proponent of the death penalty, and has been reelected two times by sweeping majorities.
E. an independent look at the evidence in murder cases in State X shows that more than ninety percent of murder suspects were guilty; a similar examination of murder cases in State Y shows that seventy percent of murder suspects were guilty.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONStep 1: Identify the Question Type
This is a Flaw question, as it asks for the reason the argument in the stimulus is flawed. The correct choice will point out why the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the stated evidence.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
Treat a Flaw question stimulus the same as other Assumption Family (Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken) stimulus. Start with a paraphrase the evidence and conclusion, and then figure out the author's assumption. Here, the author concludes that it is not true that juries are less likely to convict if they know the death penalty is possible. As evidence, the author points out that State X has the death penalty, while State Y does not, and yet the conviction rate in murder cases is higher in State X than in State Y.
Step 3: Predict the Answer
A higher rate of conviction where the death penalty exists certainly seems to suggest that delivering such sentences is not a problem for juries. However, this overlooks the possibility that juries in State X were, indeed, affected by the prospect of a death penalty, despite the higher conviction rate. Perhaps there were other differences between the cases themselves that would explain the different statistics. It's possible that convictions should have been even higher in State X (e.g., due to better prosecutors, better evidence, more obviously guilty defendants). The correct choice will point out some possibility the author has not considered that could explain the different statistics, which would then suggest that juries were, in fact, influenced by the potential for the death penalty.
Step 4: Evaluate the Choices
(E) points out another possible explanation for the different statistics, and is correct. This suggests that the 70% conviction rate in State Y is consistent with independent expectations of guilt, but the 80% conviction rate is actually lower in State X than would be expected. In that case, the conviction rate should be higher. Perhaps some juries are afraid of delivering a death sentence, after all, and the author never considers it.
(A) and (B) are incorrect because the number of murder cases in each state is irrelevant. The argument concerns the rate of conviction - a percentage.
(C) might explain why there is no death penalty in State Y, but this is irrelevant to the argument. The information in (C) has nothing to do with juries’ willingness to convict when there is the possibility of the death penalty.
(D) is also irrelevant. Even if one hundred percent of the population of State X were proponents of the death penalty, that doesn't mean that once they get on a jury and are faced with the decision in that particular case, they won’t be less likely to convict when there is a chance they could be sending a person to his or her death. Perhaps had there been no death penalty in State X, even significantly more than eighty percent of defendants would have been convicted.
TAKEAWAY: Arguments in which the author assumes there is no other explanation for something are very common on the GMAT. The answer to a Flaw question based on such an argument can point to some other explanation that the author hasn't considered.
close
11 Jan 2017, 00:37
34%
(02:14)
wrong 
