Last visit was: 23 Jun 2024, 22:59 It is currently 23 Jun 2024, 22:59
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Retired Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Status:Long way to go!
Posts: 1141
Own Kudos [?]: 6258 [43]
Given Kudos: 65
Location: Viet Nam
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93964
Own Kudos [?]: 634404 [1]
Given Kudos: 82420
Send PM
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 45 [1]
Given Kudos: 36
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V18
GMAT 2: 610 Q49 V24
GMAT 3: 640 Q48 V29
Send PM
SVP
SVP
Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1695
Own Kudos [?]: 1473 [2]
Given Kudos: 639
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
2
Kudos
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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2017
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
1
Kudos
D for this.. Rest of them weaken the argument

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 328 [0]
Given Kudos: 61
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
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
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2015
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 32 [3]
Given Kudos: 62
WE:Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 53 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
WE:Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
(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
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64315 [1]
Given Kudos: 1810
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2095
Own Kudos [?]: 8944 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
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.
Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1080
Own Kudos [?]: 1995 [1]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
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
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
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
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 248
Own Kudos [?]: 239 [1]
Given Kudos: 338
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Nov 2018
Posts: 86
Own Kudos [?]: 85 [0]
Given Kudos: 42
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
the explanation use statistical data in its argument so we need to find an answer that is related to statistical data too. Only D fits this requirement. According to the premise, the percentage of conviction of high class crimes is much lower than that of street criminals. The induction from the statistical data in the premise is much stronger now to arrive at the conclusion when we know that the percentage of actual commitment of crime is the same between high class crime and street criminals
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1250
Own Kudos [?]: 205 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
I missed this one. Isn't 'make more persuasive' a strengthening question? I chose B because it gives us another reason to believe the conclusion.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17451
Own Kudos [?]: 860 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6954 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts