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

Question

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.

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.

jpan · Answer

IMO answer is C.
The conclusion says that Alicia should also be charged. 
A counter to the conclusion is that the car taken by Alicia wasn't damaged and that taken by Peter was. So, Peter should be charged but Alicia can be let go with a warning. Since the author suspects this counter, it is the author's attempt to take it into consideration and conclude despite the objection that both should have been charged.

Akshay517 · Answer

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.

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.  the conclusion says that Alicia should also be charged as Peter. But the fact that Alicia's car was not damaged can't support the conclusion that she should be charged

(B) It justifies the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases.  The difference in actual outcome is that Peter got charged and Alicia did not. The argument says that Alicia should also be charged, meaning that the latter sentence is not given as a justification but as a consideration for which reasoning is provided as "but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior."

(C) It demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based.  The objection could be that oppose the conclusion, i.e Alicia should not be charged. This objection could only be based on the fact that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not. This could be the OA.

(D) It illustrates a general principle on which the argument relies.  It is not a general principle, it is a real statement or fact on the basis of which argument is given.

(E) It summarizes a position against which the argument is directed.  The mere 'difference in outcomes' cannot summarize a position which will be that Alicia should not be charged. There are several other factors to conclude or summarize that whether Alicia should be charged or not.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

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

Hope it helps

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards