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.
Are street criminals not able to commit crimes such as embezzlement or insider trading? What would happen if someone did that to a gang... do you think someone would sue someone for embezzling from their drug ring? (could be wrong in this... just taking a stab at it ;-)
Well, first of all you cited a correlation and then made a causal conclusion. You cited one possible variable, out of all the other complex array of variables at play in the law, and concluded that this was the determining factor in observed sentencing results. On the LSAT we know that the author, in making a causal argument, has controlled and limited all possible assumptions since by definition a valid argument has no assumptions. Why should I accept that argument when you haven't necessarily controlled for other variables?
On top of that you're comparing criminal and civil disputes; in other words comparing apples and oranges. Why are crimes committed by street criminals compared with insider trading in the first place? Aside from the many substantive differences between the two, civil and criminal cases are prosecuted differently. In criminal cases your fate is determined by a panel of jurists and depending on the relative nature of your crime they may be more inclined to convict you whereas some civil cases like insider trading are often by a panel of judges. Could this difference have some outcome on the results? It's certainly possible.
These implicit differences, along with a number of other potential distinguishing factors, could easily be the basis of an answer choice to weaken the argument you posed. I could go on and on.
@aypublicdisplay said: Well, first of all you cited a correlation and then made a causal conclusion. You cited one possible variable, out of all the other complex array of variables at play in the law, and concluded that this was the determining factor in observed sentencing results.
Boom.
Correlation/causation is never completely airtight, friend!
You're also making the assumption that street criminals can't afford the most expensive attorneys, which isn't something you can take for granted out of hand. There's nothing to say that criminals who commit "lucrative crimes" are necessarily the most well off; you're filling in some gaps with your own background it seems, assuming that those guilty of said lucrative crimes are necessarily Wall Street barons.
What would the necessary assumption be? I already perceived the correlation-causation flaw but couldn't fit that as an answer choice in this necessary assumption question type
Aaaaaaand this is outside knowledge not necessary to deal with the argument. Replace all technical words with "moonpies" and "purple monkeys." Etc. Structure is what's at issue.
Defendants who can afford expensive pink unicorns have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed purple monkeys. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like moonpies or whoopie pies are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.
Another assumption is that court-appointed purple monkeys are not paid for by clients.
If you can't see the structure, replace words in stimulus with lovely nonsense words.
Comments
WW had a lot of cash.
On top of that you're comparing criminal and civil disputes; in other words comparing apples and oranges. Why are crimes committed by street criminals compared with insider trading in the first place? Aside from the many substantive differences between the two, civil and criminal cases are prosecuted differently. In criminal cases your fate is determined by a panel of jurists and depending on the relative nature of your crime they may be more inclined to convict you whereas some civil cases like insider trading are often by a panel of judges. Could this difference have some outcome on the results? It's certainly possible.
These implicit differences, along with a number of other potential distinguishing factors, could easily be the basis of an answer choice to weaken the argument you posed. I could go on and on.
Correlation/causation is never completely airtight, friend!
Aaaaaaand this is outside knowledge not necessary to deal with the argument. Replace all technical words with "moonpies" and "purple monkeys." Etc. Structure is what's at issue. Another assumption is that court-appointed purple monkeys are not paid for by clients.
If you can't see the structure, replace words in stimulus with lovely nonsense words.