Q18 - When Alicia Green borrowed

[b91302310]

I was tempted by both answer choices (C) and (E). For (E) - It summarizes a position against which the argument is directed. As the conclusion of the argument is to criticize the inequality of the punishment for the same behavior, isn't the statement mentioned in the question the object against which the argument is directed?

Could any one clear it up? Thanks.

[cyruswhittaker]

The statement itself is auxilary, factual information that supplements the position, but it does not in itself embody the position to which the argument is directed.

So it's information that COULD be used to help bolster the other side's argument, and the author recogizes this, which is why he makes it explicit, and then subsequently says "..but since..." By doing so, he acknowledges the fact and then goes on to show why it doesn't form the basis for a strong objection.

[b91302310]

Got it! Thanks!

[dj_grey]

I am still a little confused.

What i got from the passage.
The conclusion is that Alicia should have been charged the same as Peter.

The reason (from the passage) is that they both did exactly the same thing the only difference is that in Peters's case damage was involved.

(A) This statement is NOT the reason as i said above because the reason is that "they both did the same thing". So i would not select this one.

(B) Here is where i get a little confused as well. From what i could tell the argument used the "damage / no damage" result to justify why the police assigned different punishment. But the arguer did not see this as a justification. So I did not choose this one.

(C) This was one of my choices for the answer.

(D) This was another possible choice that i put down.

(E) I also chose this as a possible answer.

Also, i dont know what the correct answer is for this problem. For some reason i could not eliminate any of the answers between C,D and E.

Any help in identifying which answer is correct and why the other two are not would be very helpful.

thanks.

[b91302310]

I think I could answer it.

"It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not" is a fact pointed out by the author from the previous sentences.
The author addresses this fact in order to introduce the argument (i.e.possible objection)- "but since it was the taxi......in the blameworthiness of their behavior". Thus, (C) is correct.

(D) is incorrect because a principle is a broad rule that specifies what actions are correct in certain situation, the sentence "It is true..." does not make such judgement. Thus, a principle in this argument is more likely to be "behavior with the same blameworthiness should be charged of no difference".

(E) is incorrect because this sentence is not a position against which the argument is directed. Rather, a position against which the argument is directed is "Peter was charged with theft but Alicia was not". So, the author makes a conclusion that "Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft" to oppose that position.

Hope this helps.