Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without [#permalink]
27 Sep 2003, 10:20
33% (00:00) correct
66% (01:02) wrong based on 3 sessions
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.
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┬б┬пs 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.
will go wih C for both.
18) Based on this evidence author argues that since Peter was not responsible for the damage, so both of them are equally to be blamed for their act. It is fact on which objection is raised later in the argument.
19) Argument basically claims that Alicia should also be charged with theft and to support it author says that Peter was not responsible for damage (grounds on which he has caught). No C syas peter jumped the red light. This goes against argument and justifies peter being caught by police.
Peter came to the attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi -- this information is correct as per the author.
'c' directly contradicts it by saying that it was Peter who ran the red lights and met with the accident whereas it was the taxi driver whose speeding caused the accident. 'c' can never be correct.