CXD逻辑136页62题,不理解

gedn01 · 发表于 2010-1-5 22:55:54

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 fro 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.

答案解释真离奇，用关键词"Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyer"与"those who rely on court-appointed public defenders"来定位可以很快发现Ｄ选涉及双方且与解释相吻合；ａ部分反对，ｂ用它因作为反对；ｃ无关选项．ｅ也是用他作为反对．

请问，这样的解释，你们明白吗？

有没有更好的解释高见？

clifford_a · 发表于 2010-1-5 23:23:04

不理解。根本不知所云。
高见谈不上。
你注意D中no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended也就意味着public的高败诉率，我也解释不太清。希望对你有所帮助。

gedn01 · 发表于 2010-1-6 16:14:22

是否题目本身有错

prayer · 发表于 2010-1-6 17:34:59

这道题感觉不太好。
原因：自己找的律师会比公共指派的律师的罪犯少定罪；结果：经济犯罪比街头犯罪在避免定罪上更容易成功。
题目针对的是前面的原因。
要找出一个加强的选项。跟假设题差不多。
D选项对，是说自己找律师和公派律师的比例是一样的，也就说明了自己找律师更容易成功

clifford_a · 发表于 2010-1-6 18:16:20

题目本身没有问题。

CXD逻辑136页62题,不理解

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()