#18 - When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

This argument states that since Alicia’s action was the same as Peter’s, she should also have been charged with automobile theft because Peter has. The statement “It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not…” suggests a possible objection to the argument. The possible objection is that Peter was charged because his car was damaged. This objection is subsequently dismissed since the damage to Peter’s car was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior.

Answer choice (A): That Peter’s car was damaged and Alicia’s was not does not support the conclusion that Alicia should have been charged with automobile theft.

Answer choice (B): The answer is incorrect because the statement does not actually justify the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases. The fact that Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not is a possible justification of the difference of outcome, but this possibility is later dismissed by the author since the damage was not due to Peter.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The statement suggests that the author is aware of a possible justification to the difference in the actual outcome, since Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not. This possibility is subsequently dismissed by the author.

Answer choice (D): The statement that Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not does not illustrate any general principle in the argument.

Answer choice (E): The statement does not summarize a position that is discredited by the argument. It is true that the statement could conceivably lead to a possible objection / justification, but the statement itself does not summarize such a position.

[jenna_d]

I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind this "method" question. What is the "fact" and the "possible objection" in this answer choice? I don't really understand where they match in the argument. Thanks!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Jenna,

Thanks for your question! In answer choice (C), the author is referring to the factual difference between Peter and Alicia's cases. The car that Peter borrowed without permission was damaged, while the car that Alicia borrowed without permission was not damaged.

This factual difference between their cases could be used to justify their differential treatment -- Peter received a harsher punishment because his conduct resulted in greater harm. The author of the stimulus recognizes the potential objection to her argument that Peter and Alicia should be treated identically, and then neutralizes the objection in the final portion of her argument.

So, just to summarize, the fact is that Peter's car was damaged while Alicia's was not. The possible objection is that Peter should receive a harsher punishment since his conduct resulted in a car being damaged, while Alicia's car was not damaged.

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[Oscarg104]

Hi, for #19, which is part two relating to the stimulus, why is C the best answer choice regarding which one out of the answer choices could be true “EXCEPT?”

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Oscarg104, we have a separate thread for that second question on this two-question stimulus, and you'll find it, including a full explanation, here:

lsat/viewtopic.php?t=4540

Take a look, and if that still doesn't answer the question for you please post a follow-up question in that thread. Thanks!

[andriana.caban]

I'm having trouble understanding the following answer choices:

(B) What does "justify the difference" mean and how would that look if this answer choice was correct?

(E) What does "summarize a position against which the argument is directed" mean? And, if this answer choice were correct what would that mean for the argument?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Andriana!

Great questions!

Answer choice B could only work if the argument and its conclusion were changed. The key term in answer choice B is "justifies," which means "proves to be right." The author of this stimulus is not using the claim to "prove to be right" the difference in the outcome of the cases (i.e., the fact that Alicia got only a warning, whereas Peter was charged with auto theft). In fact, the author argues that the difference in outcomes of the two cases was wrong, concluding "Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft."

Here's how we'd have to change the argument to make answer choice B the correct answer: "Alicia and Peter both borrowed cars without the car owners' permission. But the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, therefore it is only fair that Alicia received only a warning for her actions, whereas Peter was charged with theft." In that argument, the claim justifies (i.e., supports/proves) the difference in legal treatment.

The problem with answer choice E is the phrase "against which the argument is directed." The author is not arguing against the claim that "the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not." In fact, the author says "It is true that" there was a difference in damage to the cars.

A claim "against which an argument is directed," is the usual setup claim for a counterargument, i.e., when an author begins an argument by stating that "Some people argue that X is true." The author then directs an argument against this claim, usually by saying "X is not true," and then giving reasons why X is not true.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[andriana.caban]

Yes!!

Thank you so much.