Critical Reasoning

When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. However, when Peter Foster did the same thing, he was charged with automobile theft. Peter came to attention of the police because the car he was driving was hit by a speeding taxi. Alicia was stopped because the car she was driving had defective taillights. It is true that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not, but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior. Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft.


If all of the claims offered in the support of the conclusion are accurate, each of the following could be true EXCEPT:


[a] The interest of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning.
Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner's permission.
[c] Peter Foster was hit by the 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.
[d] Alicia Green barely missed hitting a pedestrian when she sped through a red light ten minutes before she was stopped by the police for driving a car that had defective taillights.
[d] Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never cited for a traffic violation.