When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor’s car without permission, the po

Explanation

The stem alerts us to the important statement: Peter’s car got damaged, but Alicia’s did not. We’re asked to determine the purpose of this statement, so we’ll need to examine the context in which it appears. Alicia and Peter committed the same offense—they borrowed cars without permission. Both were caught, but only Peter was punished. The author feels that Peter was punished only because the car he was driving was damaged while in his possession, although not by him.

And here’s the purpose of the statement mentioned in the stem: The author implies that equal crimes deserve equal punishment and, acknowledging the difference in the two situations, argues that this difference really shouldn’t affect the magnitude of the offense since Peter didn’t cause the damage. The author acknowledges but downplays the difference in situations. Someone might object to his argument by pointing out that Peter’s car was damaged while Alicia’s was not. Realizing this, the author mentions the damage done to the car to illustrate his awareness of the situation and to head off possible objections to the argument based on this fact—a preemptive strike, if you will. Choice (C) gets the point.


Wrong choices (A), (B), and (D) all contradict the general gist of the argument:

(A) The different outcomes highlighted in the stem wouldn’t support the conclusion that equal crimes deserve equal punishment, since the crimes would not then be equal after all. The author argues that this difference in results isn’t relevant; she certainly doesn’t use the difference to support her argument.

(B) It is clear from the conclusion and the overall tone of the passage that the author doesn’t feel that the difference in outcomes is justified.

(D) As mentioned above in (A), the statement in question is not used to directly support the argument—it’s meant to address a thorny issue in advance in order to get it out of the way. Furthermore, the statement concerns a specific difference in the results of this particular situation; it therefore is not even a “general principle.”

(E) The statement in question is a minor detail the author counter-argued, not a summary of anything, and certainly not a central focus of the argument.

Answer: C