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

Naz July 24, 2013

So the wording in answer choice (B) means that before the incident mentioned in the argument when Alicia took her neighbor's car, she had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner's permission. Meaning that the incident described in the argument was Alicia's first time. This could be true because it does not contradict anything in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C) adds another layer to Peter's culpability. Not only did Peter steal a car (which Alicia did as well), but he also violated a speeding law by running a red light. Therefore, since Peter now has two marks against him (stealing a car and violating a traffic law), the conclusion no longer stands because Alicia and Peter are not on even ground, which directly contradicts, "this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior."

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Ktong July 26, 2013

That makes perfect sense thank you!

Katie10 May 8, 2014

Hi KTong,

Thanks for explaining. I was also a bit confused about the "had never before language."

I have a question. When a Cannot Be True Questions says "If all of the claims offered in support of the conclusion are accurate," does this mean that we can still use the conclusion of the argument to evaluate truth?

In this question, it sounds like the reason C cannot be true is because it would change the conclusion. So if the question stem talks about the premise, can we also use the conclusion to evaluate? The language made it sound as if we should only look at the premise.

Thanks,
Katie

Naz May 20, 2014

I think you may be getting confused by the wording of the question stem. It is not directing you to only look at the premises of the argument. What you should take away from this question stem are the words, "could be true EXCEPT," which means that this question is a Cannot Be True question.

In a Cannot Be True question, our strategy is to look for the answer choice that contradicts any part of the stimulus. Thus, if the answer choice contradicts the conclusion, then it is our correct answer. Likewise, if the answer choice contradicts a premise or fact, then it is our correct answer choice.

Answer choice C is the answer because it states that "Peter Foster was hit by a 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." This answer choice conflicts with the claim: "this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior."

Your strategy on these questions is to find the answer choice that conflicts with ANY part of the stimulus, regardless of what the role of that part is in the stimulus is, i.e. conclusion, premise, principle or fact.

Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions.

Ant12 July 1, 2015

Great explanation for Cannot be True questions.

Alex January 22, 2017

I was also stuck between C and B and chose B for the same reasons above. So if Peter got cited for speeding twice in the preceding month and exhibits prior reckless driving can you explain why E is incorrect ?

Mehran February 3, 2017

@Alex this is a Cannot Be True question.

(E) does not conflict with anything put forth in the stimulus.

The stimulus is about what happened in these two cases so how could previous, unrelated citations for speeding (or the lack thereof) conflict?