LSAT7-1-23

A, B, E contradicts to the explanation.  C is not relevant.

D talks about the percentage of defendants who actually committed crimes (实际上犯了罪), not those who are convicted(被定罪).

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 conclusion of this argument is: Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders.

This question ask you support of the argument. Support and assumption sometime is the same since you have to bridge between premises and conclusion.

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.

Contradict the conclusion

(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.

Off the scope, who cares about prosecutor, we are talking about defendant here in 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.

We talk about rate in the argument. But this answer talks about number.

(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.

It will be a lot easier if you negate this anwer: The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is greater fro publicly defended than for privately defended defendants.

After you negate it, it weakens the argument. Since the negation weaken the argument, you knew this answer is the assumption of this argument. So, it supports.

(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.

Out of scope, who cares about juries.

恩……有道理……

我总觉得prosecutor的能力决定了罪犯能不能被成功定罪……所以觉得这个选项并没有out of scope~