GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 Jun 2018, 17:40

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1393
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 02:21
8
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:38) correct 47% (01:39) wrong based on 448 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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 for 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 “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.

Source: LSAT

_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Posts: 84
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V18
GMAT 2: 610 Q49 V24
CAT Tests
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 13:36
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.
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos are the only way to tell whether my post is useful.

GMAT PREP 1: Q50 V34 - 700

Veritas Test 1: Q43 V34 - 630
Veritas Test 2: Q46 V30 - 620
Veritas Test 3: Q45 V29 - 610
Veritas Test 4: Q49 V30 - 650

GMAT PREP 2: Q50 V34 - 700

Veritas Test 5: Q47 V33 - 650
Veritas Test 5: Q46 V33 - 650

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 485
Premium Member
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 23:35
1
broall wrote:
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 for 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 “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.

Source: LSAT


Going with B on this one.
_________________

- Stne

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 May 2017
Posts: 12
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2017, 05:25
D for this.. Rest of them weaken the argument

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 86
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2017, 01:54
broall wrote:
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 for 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 “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.

Source: LSAT


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
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 22 Apr 2015
Posts: 28
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Reviews Badge
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2017, 23:46
1
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 90
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2017, 03:47
(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.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1772
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2017, 21:22
1
pkm9995109794 wrote:
(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.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2024
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Dec 2017, 10:31
broall wrote:
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 for 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 “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.

Source: LSAT


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.
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Wharton Thread Master
User avatar
D
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1022
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2018, 02:23
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. --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
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!


My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Posts: 5
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2018, 03:25
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 214
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2018, 07:00
slayer1983 wrote:
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.
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers   [#permalink] 19 Mar 2018, 07:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.