LSAT-7-1-23 请教

23. 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.


The answer is D. Can anyone help me explain the answer? I don't quite get the logic here.


Thanks in advance!

原文逻辑：负的起私人律师的被告的定罪率小于公家律师的被告．所以经济案件的被告逃避定罪的可能性大于公家律师的被告．fficeffice" />

A, B反对．D说真正犯罪的人并不偏向于选择某种律师．如果真正犯了事的人都去找公家律师，而那些没犯事的人都找私人律师．恐怕定罪率的差别和律师贵不贵就没关系了吧．