It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 13:25

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2008, 05:34
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:03) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 9 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.

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 322

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2008, 06:02
Premise:Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders.

Conclusion: 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. (weakens the conclusion)
(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. (keep)
(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. (keep)
(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. (weakens the conclusion)
(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. (out of scope and weakens the conclusion)

Between B and C. IMO B - if prosecutors are ill equipped to handle complex cases then they can get convictions for only smaller crimes for which they have evidence. Private defense lawyers maybe better equipped to handle complicated cases.

Kudos [?]: 386 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2008, 08:59
IMO D

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.
States degree of crimes
(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.
May be true but never answer the variation between success rates of private and public prosecutors
(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading.
Not stressing on type of conviction rather type of lawyers and success rate.
(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.
If the percentage of public defendants is high than percentage of private defendants, money factor can be violated.
(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.
Sympathy factor never answers the expanse factor.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 429

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2008, 02:27
hibloom 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.

IMO C)

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 1

Re: CR Defendent   [#permalink] 01 Aug 2008, 02:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by