LSAT-7-1-18&19

fhhrewr

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.

18. 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.

这个题目的答案选C,那么剩下的四个答案是在原文中如何理解?



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

(A) The interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter Foster with a warning.

(B) 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.

(E) Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been cited for a traffic violation.

19题是什么意思?求教思路, thanks a lot!
answer is C

himba

18 The statement (that the car Peter took got damagedand the car Alicia took did not ) plays which one of the following rolesin the argument? It's asking the statament plays what role. Obviously it demonstrates awareness of a fact on which a possible objection might be based -- C.

himba

Q19. This is an interesting one. It'sactually asking which one, if true, would directly contradict theevidences cited in the passage. A, B, D, E could each be truewithout contradicting the passage. Let's look at C. The passage says that "sinceit was the taxi that caused the damage (to the car Peter wasdriving)." But C says Peter run the redlight, 闯红灯，and caused theaccident. See the contradiction ?