It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 17:11

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor s car without

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor s car without [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2009, 09:51
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
1.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.

2.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’s 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.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2009, 10:33
I'd go with C & A

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2009, 23:41
bkumars8 wrote:
I'd go with C & A

I'd appreciate detailed explanations. Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 204

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 06:04
I vote for 'D'

1.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 is that P and A should face similar charges, and this does not support it.
(B) It justifies the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases. The actual outcome was that P was charged with automobile theft while A was just given a warning and this is what is not justified according to the conclusion.
(C) It demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based. The objection is not based on the fact that P's car was damaged and A's was not. It is based on the fact that both took cars with out the permission of the owners and P's car was damaged because of no fault of his, it was the speeding taxi, so both P and A should be charged equally.
(D) It illustrates a general principle on which the argument relies. The general principle is that the driver of the car which was more damaged should pay more, so P should be charged more that A (which is what is happening), but argument is that the damage of P's car was not his fault, so both should be equally charged.
(E) It summarizes a position against which the argument is directed. It is a statement and does not summarize anything.

I vote for 'D'
2.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. This is what the conclusion supports.
(B) Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner’s permission. And since this was her first, the police could have released her after giving just a warning.
(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. It could be possible that P was in a hurry and did not see the speeding taxi, and got hit by it. In that case he should be charged more than A because he jumped the red light while A was driving carefully and did not violate any law.
(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. Since the taillights (ones at the back of the car) were defective, we are sure that the front lights were working fine, so the pedestrian would have seen the car coming. So, there is no reason for this narrow escape.
(E) Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been cited for a traffic violation. Since P had already violated law twice, whereas A did it for the first time, it is justified that P should be charged more than A.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 14:22
acumen wrote:
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.
1.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.

2.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’s 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.

I've really struggled with this question. I will try to explain it as much as I can so that I can make the most out of it:

For the first question, I choose E. The bolded sentence states a point that the author happens to agree; however, the author immediately refutes that sentence starting with "but...." indicating that he still believes that the next premise should be taken more seriously. So when I look at all the answer choices, option E seems to resemble my understanding of the sentence most accurately.

For the second question, I choose A. we're looking for an answer choice that can't be proven in the argument:

A) This is what the argument hopes for, but that's not what happened. ---> correct
B) true because may be that's why she wasn't arrested
C) that can explain why she was not arrested
D) it could explain why she was not arrested
E) it could explain why she was not arrest.

So I choose A for the second question. I'm not so sure, but this is how I would approach it. What's the OA?

Last edited by tarek99 on 10 Jun 2009, 03:46, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 801

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 22:37
C & A

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 782

Kudos [?]: 902 [0], given: 56

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 22:50
Interesting. What's the OA?
_________________

Kudos [?]: 902 [0], given: 56

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2009, 03:44
bigtreezl wrote:
C & A

I reason I feel that it can't be C for the first question is that option c says:

"It demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based"

an objection MIGHT be based?? The author has directly objected to that bolded sentence in his next sentence. That is why I can't agree with the "might" part when he has clearly made an objection to it.

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2009, 11:33
for first question, OA is C. any explanation yet?

for second question, A is not OA.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 801

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2009, 11:40
acumen wrote:
for first question, OA is C. any explanation yet?

for second question, A is not OA.

Took another look...I think the the second one is C as well

if peter was driving crazy then the blameworthiness of his behaviour is valid.

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2009, 12:14
acumen wrote:
for first question, OA is C. any explanation yet?

for second question, A is not OA.

First question is C??? I'm lost....I didn't like the "might" in C. And the second question is not A? damn, I did struggle with these questions, but I wasn't clear with it. Would you mine to share the official explanation??

Kudos [?]: 1008 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2009, 13:56
acumen wrote:
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.
1.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.

2.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’s 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.

I originally went for C & A as well, but I think C & C are the proper answers upon a second look. Here are my explanations:

(A) The conclusion is that Alicia should have been charged with theft. The fact that the car she stole was not damaged does not support the conclusion.
(B) The passage went on to say the difference was NOT justified (because the conclusion suggests there should NOT have been any difference); (B) contradicts the conclusion.
(D) The bolded portions of the text stated facts of the case, not principles. Principles might have been implied, but they were certainly NOT clearly 'illustrated'.
(E) Again, the bolded portions were facts, not positions/conclusions that this argument stands opposed to.

(C) Clearly the best fit. The bolded text acknowledges a fact that might undermine the conclusion (difference in damage), but the passage went on to articulate why the fact should not be significant (damage not their fault).

As for the second question, this one asks: which scenario is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, while the rest "COULD" (or might) be true, if the original info was all true? To answer this we must pick out the answer that directly contradicts any of the facts illustrated in the case.

(A) The conclusion certainly seem to imply that both individuals should have received the same charge/punishment, this might be true, although its tricky, & its a very attractive first answer.
(B) We don't know whether this is true, but we can't prove it false.
(D) Again, we can't prove this one false, so it has the possibility of being true, regardless of its likelihood.
(E) Again, can't prove it false, so it might be true, even if unlikely.

(C) This is the one statement that we can prove to be false. The original info says the damage caused "was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior". What this implies is that Peter was not responsible for the accident, no more so than Alice was responsible for a worn out headlight.

Yet (C) suggests that Peter ran a red light, which is a violation of law that contributed to the cause of the accident. Alice was "moving extra carefully", which in and of itself was NOT a violation of law (nor could it logically be the cause for worn out lights), regardless of her intentions. The original info states there is "NO DIFFERENCE" between the "blameworthiness" of their behaviors, but (C) clearly contradicts this by suggesting there IS a difference. (C) is therefore my next best guess on the second question.

OA on the second please (& OEs for both as well, if available)? Good questions by the way, where did they come from?

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2009, 22:02
OA on the second question anyone? I'm really curious now...

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 808

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2009, 06:30
acumen wrote:
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.
1.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.

2.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’s 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.

I originally went for C & A as well, but I think C & C are the proper answers upon a second look. Here are my explanations:

(A) The conclusion is that Alicia should have been charged with theft. The fact that the car she stole was not damaged does not support the conclusion.
(B) The passage went on to say the difference was NOT justified (because the conclusion suggests there should NOT have been any difference); (B) contradicts the conclusion.
(D) The bolded portions of the text stated facts of the case, not principles. Principles might have been implied, but they were certainly NOT clearly 'illustrated'.
(E) Again, the bolded portions were facts, not positions/conclusions that this argument stands opposed to.

(C) Clearly the best fit. The bolded text acknowledges a fact that might undermine the conclusion (difference in damage), but the passage went on to articulate why the fact should not be significant (damage not their fault).

As for the second question, this one asks: which scenario is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, while the rest "COULD" (or might) be true, if the original info was all true? To answer this we must pick out the answer that directly contradicts any of the facts illustrated in the case.

(A) The conclusion certainly seem to imply that both individuals should have received the same charge/punishment, this might be true, although its tricky, & its a very attractive first answer.
(B) We don't know whether this is true, but we can't prove it false.
(D) Again, we can't prove this one false, so it has the possibility of being true, regardless of its likelihood.
(E) Again, can't prove it false, so it might be true, even if unlikely.

(C) This is the one statement that we can prove to be false. The original info says the damage caused "was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior". What this implies is that Peter was not responsible for the accident, no more so than Alice was responsible for a worn out headlight.

Yet (C) suggests that Peter ran a red light, which is a violation of law that contributed to the cause of the accident. Alice was "moving extra carefully", which in and of itself was NOT a violation of law (nor could it logically be the cause for worn out lights), regardless of her intentions. The original info states there is "NO DIFFERENCE" between the "blameworthiness" of their behaviors, but (C) clearly contradicts this by suggesting there IS a difference. (C) is therefore my next best guess on the second question.

OA on the second please (& OEs for both as well, if available)? Good questions by the way, where did they come from?

For Question 1:
we need to answer for -> did not plays which one of the following roles
but your reasoning seems opposite to it -> did plays which one of the following roles
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2009, 17:03
sudeep wrote:
acumen wrote:
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.
1.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.

2.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’s 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.

I originally went for C & A as well, but I think C & C are the proper answers upon a second look. Here are my explanations:

(A) The conclusion is that Alicia should have been charged with theft. The fact that the car she stole was not damaged does not support the conclusion.
(B) The passage went on to say the difference was NOT justified (because the conclusion suggests there should NOT have been any difference); (B) contradicts the conclusion.
(D) The bolded portions of the text stated facts of the case, not principles. Principles might have been implied, but they were certainly NOT clearly 'illustrated'.
(E) Again, the bolded portions were facts, not positions/conclusions that this argument stands opposed to.

(C) Clearly the best fit. The bolded text acknowledges a fact that might undermine the conclusion (difference in damage), but the passage went on to articulate why the fact should not be significant (damage not their fault).

As for the second question, this one asks: which scenario is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE, while the rest "COULD" (or might) be true, if the original info was all true? To answer this we must pick out the answer that directly contradicts any of the facts illustrated in the case.

(A) The conclusion certainly seem to imply that both individuals should have received the same charge/punishment, this might be true, although its tricky, & its a very attractive first answer.
(B) We don't know whether this is true, but we can't prove it false.
(D) Again, we can't prove this one false, so it has the possibility of being true, regardless of its likelihood.
(E) Again, can't prove it false, so it might be true, even if unlikely.

(C) This is the one statement that we can prove to be false. The original info says the damage caused "was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior". What this implies is that Peter was not responsible for the accident, no more so than Alice was responsible for a worn out headlight.

Yet (C) suggests that Peter ran a red light, which is a violation of law that contributed to the cause of the accident. Alice was "moving extra carefully", which in and of itself was NOT a violation of law (nor could it logically be the cause for worn out lights), regardless of her intentions. The original info states there is "NO DIFFERENCE" between the "blameworthiness" of their behaviors, but (C) clearly contradicts this by suggesting there IS a difference. (C) is therefore my next best guess on the second question.

OA on the second please (& OEs for both as well, if available)? Good questions by the way, where did they come from?

For Question 1:
we need to answer for -> did not plays which one of the following roles
but your reasoning seems opposite to it -> did plays which one of the following roles

As for question 1, the words "did not" is part of the phrase which plays a role.

1. 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?

the words "did not" refer to the fact that the car Alicia stole "did not get damaged"... in contrast to the fact that Peter's car DID GET damaged.

These two words should be linked to the aforementioned "statement", & NOT to the verb "plays", "did not playS" simply does not make grammatical sense.

I think my original interpretation of the question was correct, & I think the OA for 1. is indeed (C), now if we could just get the OA on question 2...

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 3

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 808

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2009, 22:42
Thanks!
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
Re: CR: Alicia and Peter [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2009, 23:14
Yes comrades, both are C. [OA]

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: Alicia and Peter   [#permalink] 14 Jun 2009, 23:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by