Self-study
When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor’s car without permission, the police merely gave her a warning. ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██ █ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██ █████ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████
Argument Summary
The stimulus compares two analogous cases where people borrowed their neighbors' cars without permission. The first person, Alicia, received a warning from the police, while the second, Peter, was charged with car theft.
The author points out the different reasons these people were stopped by the police: Peter's car was hit by a taxi, while Alicia's had defective taillights. While the author grants that the car Peter was in suffered damage, while the car Alicia was in did not, the author argues that since it wasn't Peter who caused the damage, the damage didn't come from a difference in "blameworthiness" in Alicia's and Peter's behavior.
From this premise, then, the author concludes that Alicia should also have been charged with car theft, rather than simply receiving a warning.
Analysis of Argument Structure
This argument draws an analogy between two cases where people borrowed cars from their neighbors without permission. The first two sentences contrast the differing outcomes of these cases, then discusses the (implied) reason for those different outcomes: the different circumstances in which Peter and Alicia were stopped by the police.
The author then addresses a potential difference between the cases that might be used to justify the different outcomes: the fact that the car Peter was in suffered damage, and the car Alicia was in didn't. The author concedes that this difference exists, but argues that it doesn't destroy the analogy between Peter and Alicia's behavior, since someone else, not Peter, caused the damage. From this premise, the author concludes that Alicia should have been charged with car theft, as Peter was.
19.
If all of the claims ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████
a
The interests of ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ █ ████████
This could be true. The author doesn't make any claims about the "interests of justice" in general. Her case isn't about what the ideal system of justice should be; it's possible she thinks that, ideally, both Peter and Alicia should have received a warning. Her argument is just that, since the police are using this reasoning and going as far as charging Peter with automobile theft, that they should be consistent and apply it to both Peter and Alicia.
b
Alicia Green had █████ ██████ ██████ █ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████████
This could be true. It could also be true that Peter Foster had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing the owner's permission. Nothing in the argument tells us that (B) must be true or false.
c
Peter Foster was ███ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ █ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██████
This must be false. Remember that the author claims that "since it was the taxi that caused the damage, the difference [i.e., the fact that the car Peter took was damaged and the car Alicia took was not] was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior." But if that claim is true, then (C) cannot be true, because (C) is telling us that the car Peter took was damaged as a result of blameworthy behavior on his part: running a red light.
d
Alicia Green barely ██████ ███████ █ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ █ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ █ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███████████
This could be true. If you thought (D) must be false, you might have thought the author was saying that there was no significant difference in general in the blameworthiness of Peter's vs. Alicia's behavior. Even if that was what the author was saying, (D) could still be true: we don't know if Peter did something equally blameworthy to what is described in (D).
But remember that what the author says is not that Peter and Alicia's behavior was similarly blameworthy in general, but specifically that the key difference in why Peter was charged with automobile theft and Alicia was not — the fact that the car Peter took was damaged — was not due to differences in the blameworthiness of their behavior. (D) doesn't contradict that claim at all.
e
Peter Foster had ████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███ █ ███████ ██████████
This could be true. Like (D), (E) is trying to suggest that either Peter or Alicia might "generally" be more blameworthy than the other. But remember that the argument doesn't make any claims about their blameworthiness in general, just about the blameworthiness of the behavior that directly led to the car Peter took being damaged and the car Alicia took not being damaged.