Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a low

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. This argues against the claim that “criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.” If many street criminals can afford high-priced attorneys, then according to the passage they too should have a low conviction rate.

(B) No. The passage argues that high-priced attorneys get the embezzlers off, whereas this answer-choice provides an alternative explanation: it is the incompetence of the prosecutors that get the embezzlers off.

(C) No. The relevant figure is the percentage of criminals convicted of street crimes versus criminals convicted of embezzlement, not the absolute number. There may be many more street criminals than embezzlers.

(D) Yes. The underlying premise of the argument is that the percentage of people in either group who are actually guilty is the same. Perhaps nearly all the people who rely on court-appointed public defenders are actually guilty, but few of the people who hire private lawyers are actually guilty.

(E) No. The passage argues that the lesser quality of public defenders causes the higher conviction rate of their clients. This answer-choice argues that a different factor is responsible—juries’ sympathy for the victims of street criminals.