This question stem asks you to identify the one answer that CANNOT BE TRUE (must be false) in light of the claims in the stimulus.
Answer choice (A) could be true - we don't know what the stimulus's author's view is on this statement. Maybe he does, in fact, believe that "the interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning." Note that this does not contradict any of the claims made in the stimulus.
By contrast, the correct answer (C) does contain a statement that is inconsistent with (contradicts) the stimulus: "Peter Foster was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light" would make him more culpable than Alicia Green, who "drove with extra care to avoid drawing the attention of the police to the car she had taken." This statement CANNOT BE TRUE because the stimulus says that there was no difference "in the blameworthiness of their behavior."
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Maybeillgetlucky April 1, 2019
Could it also NOT be true because the passage states that Alicia was caught due to driving with defective lights... this would contradict the answer choice due to the fact a reasonable person would not consider this "taking extra care to avoid drawing attention?"
RaviMay 10, 2019
@Maybeillgetlucky, you're right, that's true. However, the big reason (C) is our answer is because of what Mehran noted above. The stimulus tells us that there was no difference in the blameworthiness o their behavior, and if Peter ran a red light, then he would presumably be more blameworthy than Alicia.
