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

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 21:33

### 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

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

# Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1331
Location: Viet Nam
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2017, 02:21
16
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (02:15) correct 48% (02:15) wrong based on 565 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

_________________
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Posts: 79
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V18
GMAT 2: 610 Q49 V24
GMAT 3: 640 Q48 V29
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Director
Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 905
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 09 May 2017
Posts: 10
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 80
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

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.

Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2015
Posts: 25
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 69
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2866
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1195
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
_________________
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Posts: 18
Location: India
Schools: IIMB EPGP"20 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 295
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2018, 07:00
1
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.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 6001
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2019, 07:13
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.
_________________
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers   [#permalink] 22 Jul 2019, 07:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by