Question

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) Must 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 for 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.

Short answer

Option (D) makes the argument more persuasive by suggesting conviction rate differences are lawyer-related.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument

The argument claims that defendants with expensive private lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those with public defenders, which explains why criminals involved in lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than street criminals.

Identify the Type of Evidence Needed

To make the argument more persuasive, we need evidence that supports the specific link between having private lawyers and the lower conviction rate, while possibly ruling out other explanations.

Analyze Each Option

Check each option to see if it provides additional evidence to strengthen the original argument: - (A) Suggests that street crime defendants also have access to private lawyers, which contradicts the argument. - (B) Focuses on prosecutor competence, not directly related to lawyer type. - (C) Talks about conviction numbers, but not rates or lawyer types. - (D) Addresses whether guilt rates differ between public and private representation. - (E) Refers to jury sympathy, not lawyer type.

Select the Best Supportive Option

Option (D) directly relates to the argument, as it suggests that the difference in conviction rates is not due to the actual guilt of the defendants, but possibly due to the effectiveness of private defense lawyers compared to public defenders.

Key concepts

Legal Reasoning

Legal reasoning is an essential skill for understanding and analyzing legal problems and arguments. It involves using logic, evidence, and principles of law to reach conclusions about legal issues. In the context of the LSAT, legal reasoning involves dissecting arguments to understand their structure and basis. It requires identifying the premises and conclusions and evaluating the logical connections between them.

In the given exercise, the primary legal reasoning task is to determine why defendants with expensive private lawyers have a lower conviction rate compared to those with court-appointed public defenders. This involves assessing whether other factors could influence this disparity in conviction rates, such as the competence of the legal representation or the jury's biases.

One must question whether the premise of the argument is sound and if the evidence provided supports the conclusion adequately. Understanding legal reasoning thus allows one to address potential flaws in the argument and identify the most convincing evidence needed to support it.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis is an integral part of the LSAT, focusing on evaluating and building arguments logically. To effectively analyze an argument, one must understand its core components: the claim, supporting evidence, and rebuttals or counterclaims.

In this exercise, we begin by breaking down the argument that wealthier defendants with private lawyers have better outcomes in court. An important step is identifying whether the argument provides sufficient evidence to support this claim. This is done by examining each detail or assertion that contributes to the overall argument. In this instance, the question requires identifying additional evidentiary support that makes the argument more persuasive.

Analyzing each answer option reveals that (D) contributes significantly to our understanding by suggesting that the difference in conviction rates is not necessarily due to the actual guilt of the defendants but rather, might be influenced by the effectiveness of legal representation. Here, such an analysis helps determine whether the key assumptions of the argument hold true or whether the argument suffers from a flaw or gap that needs to be addressed.

Logic Skills

Logic skills are the backbone of problem-solving and critical thinking, particularly in the context of LSAT preparation. They help in dissecting arguments and identifying fallacies or weak points.

To enhance logic skills, one must learn to follow the structure of reasoning and detect inconsistencies or misleading conclusions. In the exercise, employing logic skills involves discerning why the explanation that wealthy criminals evade conviction more frequently might hinge on their ability to hire better legal representation.

By examining the logical validity of each potential piece of evidence, candidates practice determining whether the evidence truly supports the contention made. Option (D) illustrates logic skills through its alignment with the argument's core reasoning, thus showing why private lawyers might result in fewer convictions because of their superior skill rather than any other reason. Such skills are indispensable in identifying what truly strengthens an argument and what doesn't.