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

Mehran November 20, 2015

Hi, @yaehz, thank you for your question. This is an Argument Structure question. Such questions direct our attention to a specific part of the stimulus and ask us to identify the role played by that portion of the stimulus in the overall argument.

Remember: on such questions, the answer choice (1) must be true and (2) correctly identify the role played by the specified portion of the stimulus.

Let's first break down the stimulus. This is an argument. The conclusion is: "therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft." The premises given in support of that conclusion establish that both Alicia and Peter borrowed a neighbor's car without permission. The stimulus does recognize that the facts are not identical for Alicia and Peter--whereas the car Peter "borrowed" was hit and thus damaged, the car Alicia "borrowed" was not damaged. Yet the author of the stimulus argues that "since it was the taxi that caused the damage [to Peter's "borrowed" car] this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their [Peter and Alicia's] behavior."

Answer choice (C) correctly identifies the role played by the statement that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not. Specifically, this statement demonstrates the stimulus author's awareness of a fact on which a possible objection to the overall argument--that Alicia, too, should have been charged with automobile theft--could be made. Notice how, in the stimulus, the author goes on to say "yes, but the difference was NOT due to any difference in blameworthiness" and then concludes that both Alicia and Peter should be treated the same.

Answer choice (B) reflects a misunderstanding of the task at hand. Although the statement does identify a difference in the actual outcome, note that the author of the stimulus DISAGREES with this difference in outcome, and is advocating for both people to be treated the same way (that is, the author of the stimulus believes that both Alicia and Peter should have been charged with automobile theft, not just one or the other). The author does not make the statement in question in order to JUSTIFY the difference in the actual outcome, but to argue that, notwithstanding the fact that one car was damaged and the other was not, BOTH "car borrowers" should be treated as thieves.

Hope this helps. Please review the strategy lecture on Argument Structure questions in the app, and let us know if you have any additional questions.

Nativeguy April 9, 2020

This helps tremendously, thank you MR. Mehran

QueenAngel October 13, 2020

I do not understand the language of this: "yes, but the difference was NOT due to any difference in blameworthiness"

Please explain!!!! I would greatly appreciate it!!

August 3, 2022

This explanation was very helpful. Thank you Mehran