Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court...

The conclusion was never explicitly stated. Am I wrong? The implicit conclusion I read in the stimulus is derived from the first statement "[D]efendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court–appointed public defenders" The implicit conclusion is: private expensive attorneys are better lawyers than public defenders. The words "rate" in the stimulus refers to the fraction: no convictions over the total number of cases convicted and not convicted: (Not convicted number)/(number of cases) And the word "percentage" in answer-choice D refers to the ratio of (actual criminals who are being prosecuted) over (the total number of cases being prosecuted fairly prosecuted and unfairly prosecuted) I ask about these two words, because if the ratios or "percentages" as put in answer-choice D is equivalent between both types of attorneys (private and expensive compared to public), and the rate of conviction is lower in the former than it is for the latter, then the conclusion follows in the sense that it is a purely test skill. Am I incorrect?