PT2.S4.Q10- "Even if crime has been committed...."

Comments

• 1 Like

  SSBM1000 Member

  November 2020 edited November 2020 614 karma

  Hello,

  A strengthens the argument because it's essentially saying that the more good cases that a prosecutor has, the more productive they will appear. Since A says that computer fraud cases take longer than the average fraud case, answer choice A strengthens the argument because it's suggesting that prosecutors won't dedicate as much time as they need to to their computer fraud cases because they can make many more good cases by focusing on most other types of fraud cases, since they don't take as much time as a computer fraud case. As a result, it's more likely that people committing computer fraud related crimes won't be convicted due to the lack of effort put into the case.
• 1 Like

  canihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐

  November 2020 edited November 2020 8318 karma

  Even if a crime committed by computer is discovered and reported, the odds of being both arrested and convicted greatly favor the criminal.

  Strengthen except: despite being reported, you probably wont get caught.

  A. case prep takes longer, and prosecutors are evaluated by volume of good cases. Strengthens - why take on a case that takes a year when you can knock out 12 equally good but shorter cases in the same time instead? This actually happens a lot, not just in prosecutor's offices, but in police departments as well.

  B. Officer turnover generally inhibits development of computer crime investigators. Strengthens - so you have few people to investigate computer crimes (also true).

  C. PDs that handle most computer crime are weighted toward non-computer crime. Strengthens... I think the translation sufficiently explains (also true - public appearances and political agenda over actual law enforcement).

  D. Computer criminals have rarely been sentenced to prison. This has no effect - 1. it addressed what has happened, while the stimulus addresses what the current state is; 2. it talks about what happens post conviction, while the stimulus talks about likelihood of conviction. This is our answer.

  E. incompetent cops often mess up computer evidence. Strengthens - bad evidence, no case (this actually happens with alarming frequency across all types of crime.)

  @miriaml7 said:
  For answer choice A, I seemed to struggle understanding how it strengthens the argument. Is answer choice A saying that the more "good" cases that you have, the higher your productivity score at your firm (I am assuming that a high productivity score is a positive attribute to have)? What if one takes on a computer-fraud case (which according to the stimulus take more time than the average fraud case) and it's a "good" case (i.e. you win the case)? Won't this increase my productivity score? Would greatly appreciate clarification on this answer choice.

  Think of it this way: I am a assistant prosecutor/ADA. I have on my desk one computer fraud case, and 12 say... fraudulent check cases. They are all equally "good".

  • Each fraudulent check case has the actual checks cashed at the bank/businesses, and videos of the offenders cashing them. Slam dunk cases. It'll take me no more than 4 weeks each to prosecute these to completion.

  • The one computer fraud case will require additional investigation, warrants for computers, follow ups with internet service providers, subpoenas, etc.. I estimate it'll take me a year to do this one.

  • The prosecutor/DA (my boss) rates my performance on how many good cases I complete in a year.

  As all cases are equally "good", why would I waste a year on the one computer case, when I can have 12 times the outcome focusing instead on the check fraud cases?

  Hope that helps! As always if anyone sees something I missed let me know! Former police officer here, so it was an enjoyable question lol. Thanks for posting it.
• 1 Like

  miriaml7 Live Member

  November 2020 1016 karma

  I appreciate all the help! @SSBM1000 @canihazJD