7-1-18

iversonalex

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.
这道题为什么选c啊，我觉得a是正确的，他怎么会直接支持结论呢？

ssssss

Premise 1: When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor’s car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning.

Premise 2: However, when Peter Foster did the same thing, he was charged with automobile theft.

Premise 3: Peter came to the attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi.

Premise 4: Alicia was stopped because the car she was driving had defective taillights.

Intermediate Conclusion: Conclusion: 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.

Conclusion: 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.
this is directly support the conclusion, because it is the intermediate conclusion of this argument.  The role of intermediate conclusion play in any argument is directly support the conclusion.

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

This is stated in the argument.

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

There is no possible objection you can find in the argument.

(D) It illustrates a general principle on which the argument relies.
This is stated in the argument. That’s why one is charged with auto theft and another not.

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

It supports the position that Alicia should not charged with auto theft, because there is no damage. This position is against which the argument is directed.  

dphxmg

I have a different thinking about of the argument. I don't agree that the sentence, -- '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.' -- is an intermediate conclusion. For one thing, the first half of it is no more than a summary of other premises. Of course, you can see it's conclusion based those premises. No one can deny that because P, so P. This is a valid argument. But the question arises from the second half. The very conception 'blameworthiness' is totally new. Can you find any trace of it in any other premise? I can't. In my opinion, It introduces a legal principle  which can regarded as the major premise of the whole argument.

In addition, let's read Options D and E little bit closely. These options are telling somethings in conflict with each other. If we want to have both true at the same time, then we have to attribute different meanings to the subject, 'it'.

Furthermore, if E is correct, then C is supposed to be right too.

It seems to me that the examiner has been lost in making the question harder and harder.