When we need to infer a conclusion from the stimulus, it’s best to think about where the
argument is leading. It pays to be famous: According to the first sentence, celebrities
convicted of crimes are increasingly being sentenced to community service, whereas
unknown convicts almost always get locked up for the same crimes. Doesn’t sound very
fair, does it? Next, we find out that the principle of equality before the law does not permit
celebrity status to affect the sentencing of criminals. This principle seems to directly
conflict with the example in the first sentence. If, in fact, celebrities are getting off easier
because of their celebrity status, then some judges out there aren’t paying much attention
to the principle of equality before the law. That’s the one solid conclusion that’s inferable
from the passage. Some of the punishments described in the first sentence conflict with the
principle described in the second, and it seems as though the author stopped just short of
presenting the conclusion contained in choice (D).