DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to

Question

DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to exonerate the innocent.Because so many convicted felons have been cleared by DNA evidence, all cases in which someone was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence should be called into question and reviewed.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen this argument?

A. One in three convictions today rests largely on DNA evidence.

B. DNA evidence is admissible even after the statute of limitations has expired.

C. Of every ten cases in which DNA evidence becomes available post-conviction, five convictions are
overturned.

D. DNA evidence is 99.8% accurate.

E. DNA evidence is very difficult to falsify or tamper with.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Yvs30081997 · Answer

i think "e " is a right answer can anyone tell

Scholar94 · Answer

Option D and E are pretty similar. However they are both strengthening different argument other than what was painted in the passage. The argument in the passage is that if we review all cases of when someone has been convicted on the basis of circumstancial evidence using DNA evidence, we'll likely have some of them cleared. So I believe only C strengthen this

Posted from my mobile device

ribbons · Answer

Premise: DNA evidence proves innocence like some convicted felons' case
Conclusion: DNA evidence can give judgment so we need to rejudge circumstantial evidence cases

What could strengthen ? If smthn stated that DNA has proven successful in judgement before

A. One in three convictions today rests largely on DNA evidence.  we are talking about circumstantial evidence cases - rejected

B. DNA evidence is admissible even after the statute of limitations has expired.  irrelevant

C. Of every ten cases in which DNA evidence becomes available post-conviction, five convictions are
overturned.  goes with my line of thinking lets keep

D. DNA evidence is 99.8% accurate.  irrelevant

E. DNA evidence is very difficult to falsify or tamper with.  irrelevant

only c seems right

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: C

The fact that would most strengthen this argument is the percentage of cases in which DNA evidence overturned prior convictions. If half of all cases resulted in erroneous convictions that were later cleared by DNA evidence, then that should certainly draw other convictions into doubt. The fact that one in three of today's convictions rest on DNA evidence has no bearing on prior convictions, so choice a is incorrect. Similarly, the admissibility of DNA evidence (choice b) has no bearing on the quality of prior convictions. That DNA evidence is accurate (choice d) and difficult to tamper with (choice e) strengthens the argument for the use of DNA evidence in court, but it does not directly strengthen the argument that prior convictions should be called into doubt.

DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

DNA evidence has increasingly been used in court to prove guilt and to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards