LR Question 19 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor’s car without permission …
QUESTION TYPE: Must Be False
CONCLUSION: Alicia should have also been charged with automobile theft.
REASONING: Both Alicia and Peter took a car without permission. Alicia got a warning, but Peter got charged. He came to police attention because a taxi hit the car he was driving. Alicia was stopped because of defective taillights. Peter’s car was damaged and Alicia’s wasn’t.
But the damage was not Peter’s fault. The taxi was speeding, so that’s irrelevant to blameworthiness. Hence, their actions were equally blameworthy.
ANALYSIS: The author essentially argues the only relevant factor in deciding punishment is blameworthiness. Since both Alicia and Peter were equally blameworthy, they should be punished the same.
Each incorrect answer (4) may be consistent with the argument. The correct one will introduce a new reason to think Peter’s behavior was worse, contradicting the claim that they were both equally blameworthy.
___________
- While this contradicts that Alicia should have been charged, it could still be true. It’s consistent with the idea that Alicia and Peter deserve the same treatment. Possibly both should’ve gotten off with a warning.
- If Alicia was a first-time offender, it could still be consistent with the idea that her and Peter’s actions were equally blameworthy. Maybe Peter was also a first-time offender.
- CORRECT. This contradicts the claim that the only difference between the two was the speeding taxi, and that Peter was not more blameworthy. If Peter ran a red light and Alicia drove carefully, he was more blameworthy.
- This gives proof that makes Alicia more blameworthy, thus supporting the idea that she should have been charged like Peter.
- This gives Peter a worse record, but the argument doesn’t necessarily depend on prior records, only the incident itself. It’s still consistent with the claim that they were equally blameworthy during this event.
Leave a Reply