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 the 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.

The statement that the car Peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

(A) It presents a reason that directly supports the conclusion.

(B) It justifies the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases.

(C) It demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based.

(D) It illustrates a general principle on which the argument relies.
(E) It summarizes a position against which the argument is directed.

OA C

Both stole the car however Alicia was not involved in accident on the other hand peter was.
the first action was stealing and then the other part happened. finally we conclude that Alicia should have been charged too.

now the fact that the car peter took got damaged and the car Alicia took did not-- is acting to create a question in the argument- the question being- "why should only peter be charged when both have done the same crime- stealing"

A - doesn't support the conclusion.
B- doesn't justify the actual outcome in the two cases. both should be punished.
C- Yes - it does create an objection.
D- no it doesn't create any general principles.
E- it doesn't summarize the position rather it leave this big question in the argument "WHY"
Hence C

Can someone provide a more elaborate explination as to why not B?

Agree with OA.

AIMGMAT what's the source of all your questions? I find these very interesting, atleast a break from regular stuff !!

Nice Job, Kudos to you

@Sandy - Its LSAT question .

@Champmag - Even i went for B .Looking for some more analysis on B .

AIM GMAT wrote:@Sandy - Its LSAT question .

@Champmag - Even i went for B .Looking for some more analysis on B .

B)It justifies the difference in the actual outcome in the two cases.
B does not work here because the author of the argument does not agree with the difference in punishments meted out to alicia and Peter.
If B had justified the difference in actual out come , the conclusion would have been "It is correct that Alicia not be charged with automobile theft.

Its C not B, because this statement doesn't justifies anything...

ankursharma05 wrote:Its C not B, because this statement doesn't justifies anything...

Shortest Explanation I have come across on BTG