ChaseDream

标题: LSAT 7-1-18 [打印本页]

作者: chasegoal 时间: 2006-8-27 03:41
标题: LSAT 7-1-18

LSAT 7-1-18

When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor’s car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. However, when Peter Foster did the same thing, he was charged with automobile theft. Peter came to the attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi. Alicia was stopped because the car she was driving had defective taillights. It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior. Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft.

18. The statement that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

(A) It presents a reason that directly supports the conclusion.

(B) It justifies the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases.

(C) It demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based.

(D) It illustrates a general principle on which the argument relies.

(E) It summarizes a position against which the argument is directed.

找了半天了，没有找到相关的讨论。请NN帮忙看看解释一下。答案是C。但是我实在不知道为什么。先谢谢了

作者: nidm 时间: 2006-8-27 04:25
我第一次做的时候也错了, 所以现在也比较模糊.
CONCLUTION: "Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft."
A) "DIRECTLY" -- 不对. 我觉得"without permission" 更DIRECT一些. 应该是'INDIRECTLY"
B) "JUSTIFIES" -- 正好相反.
C) "POSSIBLE" -- 说的如此圆滑, 保留一下
D)" GENERAL PRINCIPLE" -- 感觉上题目里没有什么PRINCIPLE的东西. 只是感觉上不好. (最后比较C,觉得C更好些)
E)"AGAINST" -- 觉得应该是跟ARGUMENT(CONCLUSION)一致的呀.

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)