Keep in mind that Alicia and Peter committed the same crime: borrowing a neighbor's car without permission.
The difference between these two was the manner in which their crime was discovered. Alicia was pulled over for detective taillights, but Peter was involved in a crash. Alicia's actions did not result in damage to the car, but Peter's did. The author claims that, because the taxi was responsible for the crash, Peter did not commit a worse offense that Alicia. Therefore, the difference in damage doesn't matter, and they should be charged equally.
Let's go through the answer choices. The facts given by the author will contradict one of these choices, and that will be our correct answer.
A. This could be true, because this would at least make the charges consistent. Even if it doesn't match the conclusion, it is compatible with the support statements.
B. This could be true. It isn't relevant if Alicia had driven someone else's car before. Nothing in the passage prevents this from being true.
C. This is the correct answer, because it could not be true according to the author's support statements. If Peter did have some fault in the accident (running a red light), then it contradicts the author's point about blameworthiness. If Peter was more blameworthy, then maybe the more serious charge was deserved.
D. You asked why D is incorrect. I don't see a part of the passage that prevents this from being true. This answer choice suggests to
E. Alicia's and Peter's traffic records are never mentioned as a factor in their charges.
SamAOctober 2, 2019
@Gianna,
Please disregard that first response. Part of my answer was cut off.
Keep in mind that Alicia and Peter committed the same crime: borrowing a neighbor's car without permission.
The difference between these two was the manner in which their crime was discovered. Alicia was pulled over for detective taillights, but Peter was involved in a crash. Alicia's actions did not result in damage to the car, but Peter's did. The author claims that, because the taxi was responsible for the crash, Peter did not commit a worse offense that Alicia. Therefore, the difference in damage doesn't matter, and they should be charged equally.
Let's go through the answer choices. The facts given by the author will contradict one of these choices, and that will be our correct answer.
A. This could be true, because this would at least make the charges consistent. Even if it doesn't match the conclusion, it is compatible with the support statements.
B. This could be true. It isn't relevant if Alicia had driven someone else's car before. Nothing in the passage prevents this from being true.
C. This is the correct answer, because it could not be true according to the author's support statements. If Peter did have some fault in the accident (running a red light), then it contradicts the author's point about blameworthiness.
D. You asked why D is incorrect. D could be true, because it suggests that the police were unaware of Alicia nearly hitting a pedestrian. It only says she was pulled over for the broken taillights. That is what the charges are based on. It is possible that she got away with this near miss, but was then stopped for the taillights.
E. Alicia's and Peter's traffic records are never mentioned as a factor in their charges.
mikelleJune 29, 2020
For answer choice C, does it not matter that the answer choice states Alicia had taken a police car?
