LSAT-7-1-19

flyingceleste · 发表于 2005-2-18 21:27:00

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

19. If all of the claims offered in support of the conclusion are accurate, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

(A) The interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning.

(B) Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner’s permission.

(C) Peter Foster was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light, whereas Alicia Green drove with extra care to avoid drawing the attention of the police to the car she had taken.

(D) Alicia Green barely missed hitting a pedestrian when she sped through a red light ten minutes before she was stopped by the police for driving a car that had defective taillights.

(E) Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been cited for a traffic violation.答案是C，怎么理解Alicia Green drove with extra care to avoid drawing the attention of the police to the car she had taken.我觉得有有意避开警察注意的意思，那就隐含AG其实怕被警察看到，因为她知道自己没得到允许用了车是不好的，那不是support结论了吗？等NN帮忙

mage · 发表于 2005-2-23 02:34:00

what is the conclusion?

the conclusion is these twe guys should receive the same charge, since they are same blameworthy.

C said even though A was not at fault in the car accident, he violate the law after all(run red line) while P is innocent all through. So they are not the same blameworthy and the conclusion is invalid.

dphxmg · 发表于 2005-2-23 07:01:00

mage:

i'm afraid i can't agree with you. i think that we don't need to take the conclusion into consideration. because the question doesn't concern whether or not the conclusion is true. The wording of the question is 'all the claims... are accurate'. So we don't have to care the accuracy of the conclusion.

If the conclusion is concerned here, then answer seems to be good.

In fact, the conclusion summed up by you is an extension of that A.G. should also be charged with automobile theft. That is, your conclusion that'... receive the same charge,...' is not a very good rephrasing of the actual conclusion that 'A.G. should be charged with automobile theft'. In fact, your conlusion implies that it is also right that P.F. deserves only a warning. However, this point is not expressed by the question maker. It's just your inference based on your own implicit knowledge.

希望mage指正。

mage · 发表于 2005-2-23 12:26:00

sorry, I didn't read the stimulus carefully. I just browse the reasoning and draw a hasty conclusion. A stupid mistake!

but I think the essential point is corrrect, that is, C is conflict with the premise.

LSAT-7-1-19

LSAT-7-1-19

所属分类: 法学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()