When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. However, when P...

Allison on May 19, 2021

Confusion

I got really confused by this question because I feel like I do not see many could be trues on LR sections, with that being said, I was not sure about really any of the answers and I was wondering if they could each be explained as to why they are right/ wrong?

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Victoria on May 19, 2021

Hi @AllisonJ,

Happy to help!

The correct answer here will be the one that cannot be true. All the incorrect answers do not have to be true, but they could be. When approaching these kinds of questions in the future, try not to get tripped up by the wording and focus on what you are looking for i.e. an answer choice that cannot be true.

Let's start by going through the stimulus. The author concludes that Alicia should have been charged with automobile theft. Why? Both Peter and Alicia borrowed a neighbour's car without permission; however, Alicia was let off with a warning whereas Peter was charged with automobile theft.

Alicia was stopped by the police because the car had defective taillights. Peter was stopped by the police because his car was hit by a speeding taxi. After presenting these additional details, the author offers us a subsidiary conclusion: there was no difference in the blameworthiness of their behaviour because the damage to Peter's car was caused by the taxi.

Now let's go through the answer choices. This is definitely a confusing question. We are looking for the answer choice which directly contradicts the conclusion that Alicia should have been charged because the only difference between her and Peter's behaviour was the damage which was not due to any difference in their respective blameworthiness.

Answer choice (A) could be true based on the information we are presented with. The author specifies that, as the taxi caused the damage, Peter and Alicia were equally blameworthy. Therefore, the interests of justice may have been better served if they received the same punishment i.e. a warning.

Answer choice (B) could be true. We are not provided with any information which suggests otherwise, and this may have influenced the police's decision to simply let Alicia off with a warning.

Answer choice (D) could also be true. We are focused on the damage caused to Peter's car which was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their actions. Alicia may have done these things, but she caused no damage.

Answer choice (E) could be true. We are not provided with any information which suggests otherwise, and this may have influenced the police's decision to simply let Alicia off with a warning.

Finally, answer choice (C) cannot be true because it contradicts the author's conclusion that the damage was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behaviour. This tells us that Peter was running a red light when he was hit by the taxi, meaning that he was committing an illegal act when the damage occurred and was, therefore, more to blame. This suggests that he deserved the charge and the police were correct in letting Alicia off with just a warning.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Allison on June 1, 2021

it does thank you