Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 3): The government of Farland

Question

The government of Farland continues to spend heavily to employ highly skilled attorneys as public prosecutors. Clearly, this spending is unwarranted. In Farland, fewer than five percent of criminal cases are now fought in the courts; the remaining cases are resolved outside of court through plea bargains. As a result, public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court.
 
Which of the following, if true of Farland, most seriously weakens the above argument?

A. The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.
B. A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.
C. Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose. 
D. The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments.
E. The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has increased over the last few years.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

The author of the argument has concluded the following: this spending ( Farland continues to spend heavily to employ highly skilled attorneys as public prosecutors) is unwarranted.

The support for that conclusion is that, in Farland, fewer than five percent of criminal cases are now fought in the courts; the remaining cases are resolved outside of court through plea bargains, and that, as a result, public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court.

The correct answer will cast doubt on that conclusion.

(A) The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.

This choice has no effect on the argument.

Notice that the argument is about public prosecutors who have very few “criminal cases” to fight in court. So, the information about non-criminal cases provided by this choice is irrelevant.

If you weren’t sure whether public prosecutors are involved in non-criminal cases, you could notice that the passage says that “public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court.” So, we can tell that, regardless of what this choice says, about non-criminal cases being fought in the courts, it remains the case that prosecutors are not fighting cases in court in Farland.

(B) A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.

This choice helps to confirm that Farland’s spending on the salaries of public prosecutors is unwarranted. After all, this choice tends to confirm that public prosecutors do not have a lot to do since handling plea bargains is not as time consuming as fighting cases in court is.

(C) Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose.

Correct Answer

This choice casts doubt on the conclusion that the spending on public prosecutors’ salaries is unwarranted by showing that Farland may be saving money by spending that money. After all, it could be the case that the criminal defendants don’t wage costly court battles because they are convinced they will lose because they will be dealing with “ highly skilled attorneys” serving as public prosecutors.

So, Farland’s spending on the salaries of those attorneys could be doing just what it’s meant to do, save money by causing criminal defendants to accept plea bargains rather than wage costly court battles.

(D) The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments.

This choice has no effect on the argument. Regardless of how the efficiency of the government department that public prosecutors work for compares with that of other departments, it could still be the case that spending money to employ highly skilled attorneys is unwarranted.

(E) The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has decreased over the last few years.

This choice may seem to weaken the argument, but actually, it makes no difference. Regardless of what this choice says about the proportion of cases settled in plea bargains, it remains true that, in Farland, fewer than five percent of criminal cases are now fought in court, and that, as a result, public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court.

Answer: C

nivivacious · Answer

A. The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.
Incorrect. The argument is about the spending on public prosecutors for criminal cases, not non-criminal cases. Therefore, even if the number of non-criminal cases is increasing, it doesn't directly impact the argument about criminal cases.

B. A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.
Incorrect. This option could potentially strengthen the argument rather than weaken it.

C. Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose. 
Correct. This option weakens the argument. If defendants are choosing not to fight in court because they believe they will lose, it suggests that the presence of highly skilled public prosecutors is having a deterrent effect. This could justify the government's spending.

D. The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments.
Incorrect. This option doesn't directly weaken the argument. While it's positive that the department is run efficiently, it doesn't address the specific issue of whether the spending on public prosecutors is warranted.

E. The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has increased over the last few years.
Incorrect. This option doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. Even if the proportion of cases settled in plea bargains has increased, it doesn't directly address whether the spending on public prosecutors is necessary.

TargetKellogg2024 · Answer

The government of Farland continues to spend heavily to employ highly skilled attorneys as public prosecutors. Clearly, this spending is unwarranted. In Farland, fewer than five percent of criminal cases are now fought in the courts; the remaining cases are resolved outside of court through plea bargains. As a result, public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court.
  
 Which of the following, if true of Farland, most seriously weakens the above argument?
 
 A. The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.
  This statement is about non-criminal cases and does not directly impact the argument concerning criminal cases and spending on public prosecutors. It's not directly relevant to the issue at hand.

B. A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.
  This statement suggests that plea bargains may require less time and effort from public prosecutors compared to fighting cases in court. However, it doesn't address the question of whether the spending on highly skilled attorneys is justified or not.

C. Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose. 
  This statement weakens the argument. If many criminal defendants are avoiding court battles and accepting plea bargains because they believe they will lose, it indicates that the spending on highly skilled attorneys might be necessary to secure more plea bargains

D. The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments.
  The efficiency of the government department doesn't directly address the issue of spending on highly skilled attorneys and its justification. It's not directly relevant to the argument.

E. The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has increased over the last few years.
  This statement reinforces the argument rather than weakening it. If more criminal cases are being resolved through plea bargains, it suggests that the current approach might be effective, potentially justifying the spending on highly skilled attorneys.

Flower_Child · Answer

Premise:The government of Farland continues to spend heavily to employ highly skilled attorneys as public prosecutors.

Conclusion : Gov. spending is unwarranted since public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court because fewer than five percent of criminal cases are fought in the courts and the remaining cases are resolved outside of court through plea bargains.

We need to weaken the above argument.

A. The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.
 Incorrect.  Even when the number of cases are increasing the fact still remains true that only fewer than five percent of criminal cases are fought in the courts and that public prosecutors often go a year or more without having to fight a single case in court .So this statement does not weaken the conclusion.

B. A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.
 Incorrect.  How much time it takes for a prosecutor to solve a case inside a court and outside a court is not of concern. Even if more time is taken to solve cases inside the court the fact remains true that only only fewer than five percent of criminal cases are fought in the courts.

C. Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose.
 Correct.   if the defendant forgoes court battles that are costly to government, it can mean that government spending in court cases has reduced because of this. So in a way, this choice suggests that by having highly skilled prosecutors, gov is saving on its spending.

D. The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments.
 Incorrect.  Comparing efficiency of different gov. departments is not of any concern. This statement does not weaken the conclusion at all.

E. The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has increased over the last few years.
 Incorrect.  This choice strengthens the conclusion by stating that even when fewer than five percent of criminal cases are fought in the courts , the cases that are resolved outside of court through plea bargains are ever increasing.

missionmba2025 · Answer

Conclusion: This spending is unwarranted

We have to weaken this conclusion.

A. The number of non-criminal cases fought in the courts has been increasing in Farland.

Not relevant. The argument revolves around criminal cases. Also we don't know if the same lawyers practice non criminal cases. Eliminate.

B. A plea bargain does not consume as much of a public prosecutor’s time as fighting a case in court does.

Out of scope. We have to weaken the argument and find a reason why is the spending relevant.

C. Many criminal defendants currently forgo waging court battles, which are costly to the government, because they are convinced they will lose.

This is convincing. If the government don't spend on these lawyers they will probably have to fight the defendants. Any loss can be costly to the government. Keep.

D. The government department that public prosecutors work for is run more efficiently than many other departments

Out of scope. How does the department function as a whole is not the point in the argument.

E. The proportion of criminal cases settled in plea bargains has increased over the last few years.

Strengthens the argument instead of weakening it. Eliminate.

IMO C

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 3): The government of Farland

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Around the World in 80 Questions (Day 3): The government of Farland

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards