Q19 - When Alicia Green borrowed

[backupbecool]

I understand why A and B are eliminated, but I don't really see why the answer cannot be E. I do understand why the answer COULD be C.

[bbirdwell]

Tough question. Just to make sure we're clear about the task: 4 of the answers could be true, one of them cannot be true, meaning something in the argument prohibits it. It's like an inference question but we're looking to prove a choice wrong rather than right.

The reason (C) cannot be true has to do with the "blameworthiness." The final conclusion of the argument is that Alicia should've been charged with theft, and one important piece of evidence for that conclusion is in the previous sentence: "since...this difference was not due to any difference in blameworthiness..."

But if (C) were true, then Peter is certainly more blameworthy than Alicia - he ran a red light!

(E) cannot be the answer because we've no evidence against it. We know nothing about Peter or Alicia's previous driving records.

Make sense?

[alovitt]

I understand C, given that the taxi allegedly caused the damage and had Peter been driving recklessly then he would be more blameworthy. However, I do not understand why A is wrong. The conclusion says, "Alicia should also have been charged." Doesn't releasing peter with a warning, and thus not charging him either, weaken the conclusion? So, how could this be true? Is it because A by itself does not conflict with any of the claims offered in support of the conclusion, although it conflicts with the conclusion itself?

[timmydoeslsat]

I understand C, given that the taxi allegedly caused the damage and had Peter been driving recklessly then he would be more blameworthy. However, I do not understand why A is wrong. The conclusion says, "Alicia should also have been charged." Doesn't releasing peter with a warning, and thus not charging him either, weaken the conclusion? So, how could this be true? Is it because A by itself does not conflict with any of the claims offered in support of the conclusion, although it conflicts with the conclusion itself?

This question stem, as you noted, asks us what must be false if the evidence is accurate.

So you are right that the conclusion is not evidence, so it is not being observed in determining what must be false.

You do see, however, that the author went one direction in terms of trying to resolve the inequity of charges. Instead of bringing down Peter's charge to a warning, the author goes for equality in terms of bumping Alicia's to theft.

And this is what (A) brings up for consideration.

[bbirdwell]

I would add that we have no idea, based on the original argument, what would have "served the interests of justice." Therefore, anything regarding those interests COULD be true. Those interests could, then, totally conflict with the author's opinion (the conclusion), as you pointed out.

[anjelica.grace]

I think I may be confusing myself here, but if (C) is correct because it contradicts the fact that there was no difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior, then doesn't (D) also contradict that same fact?

The information in (D) suggests that Alicia was blameworthy for the kind of behavior described in the choice, no?

[timmydoeslsat]

First, lets take a step back and think of the big picture with this argument and what we are asked with this question.

We are asked to find something that must be false.

We are told that the difference of the two situations was not due to the blameworthiness of their behavior. Yeah Peter's car was damaged, but it was a taxi that caused the damage. So, the blameworthiness of Peter's and Alicia's actions are equal.

Answer choice C tells us that Peter ran a red light when the taxi hit him. This contradicts what we are told in the stimulus, that these two people are equally blameworthy, and this fact would change that.

With answer choice D, that stuff may be true about Alicia, but we are concerned about the damage phenomenon. The only difference between Alicia and Peter is the idea of damage. Alicia may have done those things, but she did no damage.

[loopvinny84]

Thanks LSAT Geek, you made it make perfect sense to me.

[BackoftheEnvelope]

Answer choice C tells us that Peter ran a red light when the taxi hit him. This contradicts what we are told in the stimulus, that these two people are equally blameworthy, and this fact would change that.

Hmm. I arrived at (C) differently: If Peter was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light, then he would have caused the damage to the car he was driving. This contradicts the stimulus, which says, "it was the taxi that caused the damage [to the car Peter was driving]." My approach could be problematic since I may be confusing "causing" with "responsible for" (i.e., the taxi still caused the damage in the literal sense of the word) and yours definitely makes sense in retrospect, but the part about Peter and Alicia NOT being equal in blameworthiness (if we accept (C) as true) did not even enter my mind.

[arazz716]

I agree with everyones points about the blameworthiness of Peter being altered due to the fact that he ran a red-light.

However, I believe the main contradiction here, as to why question C must be false, is because answer choice C states, "...Alicia Green drove with extra care to AVOID DRAWING THE POLICE to the car she had taken." This contradicts the stimulus, the stimulus states, "...Alicia was stopped (by the police) because the car she was driving had defective tail lights..."

In other words, answer choice C must be false because if Alicia were to not attract the attention of the police, she would have never been stopped by them to begin with.

Thus answer choice C is correct.