Critical Reasoning

Alicia took neighbour's car without permission, got police attention because of defective backlight.Police excused her with some warning.
Peter also took the neirhbour's car without permission,got police attention when met with an accident by a speedy taxi and car rear was damaged.Police charged him with automobile theft.
Author: It was the speeding taxi which damaged the car,there is no fault of Peter, so both have done the same mistake of taking car without permission therefore Alicia should be charged with automobile theft.

Q: If all claims offered in support of conclusion are accurate,then each of following must be true EXCEPT:
A. The interest of justice would have been served better if both were left with warning
B. Alicia barely missed hitting pedestrian when she speed through red light 10 minutes before she was caught by police for driving with defective headlight.
C. Peter caught thrice last month for speedy driving whereas Alicia never violeted the traffic rules.
D. Alicia never took the car without permission earlier.
E. Peter's car hit by taxi while he was jumping the red light whereas Aliciadrove with extra care to avoid police attention to the car she was driving.

This one seems to be a LSAT CR.

IMO [spoiler]D![/spoiler]

nitinrajasingh wrote:Alicia took neighbour's car without permission, got police attention because of defective backlight.Police excused her with some warning.
Peter also took the neirhbour's car without permission,got police attention when met with an accident by a speedy taxi and car rear was damaged.Police charged him with automobile theft.
Author: It was the speeding taxi which damaged the car,there is no fault of Peter, so both have done the same mistake of taking car without permission therefore Alicia should be charged with automobile theft.

Q: If all claims offered in support of conclusion are accurate,then each of following must be true EXCEPT:
A. The interest of justice would have been served better if both were left with warning
B. Alicia barely missed hitting pedestrian when she speed through red light 10 minutes before she was caught by police for driving with defective headlight.
C. Peter caught thrice last month for speedy driving whereas Alicia never violeted the traffic rules.
D. Alicia never took the car without permission earlier.
E. Peter's car hit by taxi while he was jumping the red light whereas Aliciadrove with extra care to avoid police attention to the car she was driving.

Hi!

This question makes absolutely no sense! Aside from all of the transcription errors, the question stem suggests that 4 of the answers are valid inferences based on the information provided above. However, NONE of the answers are "must be true"s, so all 5 of them are correct!

Looking at each choice:

A) It's also possible that the interests of justice would be better served by charging both of them.
B) How do we know if Alicia barely missed hitting a pedestrian?
C) How do we know their past driving records?
D) How do we know if Alicia has previously stolen the car?
E) How do we know if Peter jumped a red light or if Alicia was super careful?

Now, B, C, D and E are all completely outside the scope. This leads me to believe that A is the correct answer to a completely different question:

If all of the statements above are true, which of the following MUST BE FALSE?

or:

If all of the statements above are true, then each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

since "must be false" and "could be true except" are different ways of asking the same question.

Dear Stuart,

u r right..This one has "frustrated" me heavily.. Sorry for the original poster. Wondering what if Testluv or stacey would have seen this post.. Hahhaha!!

No option really fits the bill. I really tried very hard to oil my brain to get " some" answer...