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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Cannot Be True. The correct answer choice is (C)

Answer choice (A): This answer choice could be true because we do not know what would better serve the interests of justice.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice could be true because nowhere in the argument does it state that Alicia has previously driven someone else’s car without permission.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. It cannot be true because the stimulus states that “this difference (that Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not) was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior”. Meanwhile, this answer choice suggests that Peter was responsible for the damage on his car, while Alicia can take credit for the fact that her car was not damaged.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice could be true without contradicting anything in the stimulus. The fact that Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not is still not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice could be true without contradicting anything in the stimulus.

[lawschoolforme]

Hello there,

I'm having trouble with this question for a number of reasons.

Thus far, I've identified that this is a "cannot be true" question type and understand why a, b, and e are wrong answers. My contenders then are C and D.

The stimulus seems to suggest that blameworthiness of behavior is at the crux of the issue - although the outcome of each individual's actions are different (damaged car vs. not damaged car), their initial actions (borrowing a car without permission) are the same. In this way, our speaker argues, they are equally blameworthy and deserve the same punishment.

As I examine the answer choices however, I find myself torn between C and D and can't see why either is correct (C is the correct answer).

Thus far, my line of thought is that answer choice C seems to increase Peter's blameworthiness. Conversely, answer choice D seems to increase Alicia's blameworthiness. This is done (in both answer choices) by expressing the different actions of each individual during their "car borrowing".

What I find difficult to reconcile is that the conclusion of the stimulus argues that Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft since she, like Peter, borrowed a car without permission. Part of its reasoning is that it discounts what happens between the borrowing of the car and police warning/charge (damage vs. no damage).

In this way, the underlying assumption to this line of reasoning is that it shouldn't matter whether or not damage was caused to the car, what matters is that both Alicia and Peter committed the same crime and should receive the same punishment. (Here, I'm not sure if my terminology is off - in which case, please do let me know!)

This is why it seems odd me then that either C or D is impossible given that it doesn't matter how Alicia or Peter drove the illicitly borrowed car - it just matters that they drove it. In this way, neither C nor D goes against the realm of possibility given either the premises or the conclusion.

I guess I'm just not sure what I'm not seeing and where my line of thought takes me astray (or if I've missed the point of the question entirely). How can I fix my approach? Yikes!! I'd appreciate any help I could get!

-lawschoolforme

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

The test makers can be tricky--sometimes in the stimulus, and sometimes in the question stem. In this case, the question specifies, "if all of the claims offered in support of the conclusion are accurate..."

One of the claims: that the difference, specifically with regard to resulting damages, was not due to any difference in blameworthiness. If answer choice (C) were true, there would be a clear difference in blameworthiness for those damages.

Tough one--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[lawschoolforme]

Hi,

Thanks so much! Just to make sure - C allots blame to Peter Foster because he ran a red light and D doesn't allot blame to allot to Alicia Green because she "barely missed" (rather than hit) a pedestrian?

-lawschoolforme

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for the follow-up; good question, because this can be a tricky one...

Let's start with a quick review of the argument presented:

Alicia and Peter both borrowed cars without permission. Alicia was stopped for a broken tail light, and Peter was stopped when he was hit by a speeding taxi. Only Peter was charged with auto theft. The author concedes that only Peter's car was damaged, but makes the following basic argument:

Premise: There was no difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior.
Conclusion: Alicia should have been charged with theft as well.

The question that follows specifies that all of the author's supporting claims are true, and asks which answer choice then could not be true.

Answer choice (D) could be true, because it goes along with (and supports) the basic idea of comparable blameworthiness.

Answer choice (C), however, draws a pretty clear line underscoring the fact that there is a difference in the blameworthiness of their behaviors: Peter ran a red light, while Alicia drove with extra care.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[lawschoolforme]

Yeah! Thank you so much! I really appreciated your lengthy explanation!!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thank you for your nice response! I'm glad you found the explanation helpful.

~Steve

[ashpine17]

I understand why C was correct because they're supposed to have the same level of blame but this choice states that AC flat out states P ran a red light so he was to blame for his accident...but what is wrong with A? It's true "the interests of justice" wasn't explicitly mentioned but couldn't I tie that back to the whole just punishment dilemna? I thought the argument was implying that both should have gotten the same punishment.

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine,

If it's not mentioned, then of course it could be true. New information in an answer makes it wrong for a Cannot Be True just like for a Must Be True. So if "the interests of justice" did not appear in the stimulus, then we can't infer anything about it, so have no idea whether it cannot be true.

Alicia got a warning. Answer choice (A) is saying it would have been better for Peter to get a warning. That's equality, though. So, as you yourself point out, the "equal treatment" part of the stimulus would actually seem consistent with answer choice (A).

Robert Carroll