PT2.S4.Q10 Computer Criminals

kchurich

I ended up eliminating all of the answer choices and am a bit confused why answer choice is D. Is it because the answer choice only mentions sentencing and not arrested + convicted as the stimulus does?

scarlet739

So breaking this question down: The stimulus is basically saying that even if there are computer crimes reported, the odds of the criminal being arrested/convicted is low.

We have to find an answer choice that does NOT strengthen, so the correct answer choice either weakens the argument or doesn't really do anything at all. Lets look at the answer choices:

A- this strengthens, because it shows that computer fraud cases take a long time to investigate and how prosecutors productivity is judged by # of cases. So it would make sense for prosecutors to focus on other, shorter cases (maybe like shoplifting or vandalism) vs. these computer cases, and therefor bc there's less investigations, odds of computer criminals being arrested is low.

B- this strengthens because it shows that the police officers don't ever get to the point of being competent enough to investigate computer crimes and therefore it helps prove the odds of computer criminals being arrested are low.

C- this strengthens because its saying the local police department focuses and spends more of their energy on street crime than computer crimes

D- so what if computer criminals are rarely sentenced?? There could be 1 computer crime that actually gets committed every 10 years, and that computer criminal could be arrested and convicted. This shows that computer criminals are rarely sentenced, but it also shows that the odds of the criminal being arrested/convicted are HIGH, not low (in this case it's 100%). This answer choice doesn't strengthen the answer choice, it's a bait-y answer that makes you think it's relevant to the simulus when it's really not. So it doesn't strengthen and therefore is the correct answer.

E= this strengthens because this shows that police officers are incompetent in dealing with computer crimes to the point that they accidentally destroy the computer evidence. Basically these officers are idiots LOL and without evidence it can be difficult to arrest or even convict someone.

I hope this makes sense!