PT7.S1.Q19 - "When Alicia Green borrowed a neighbor's car without permission..."

mdedios2

I'm pretty confused on this question.

---

Here's how I thought of it:

Premise: Alicia and Peter had equal blameworthiness for the same "crime" (using another person's car w/o permission)
Conclusion: Alicia should be charged with the same punishment as Peter's.

AC C is the correct answer, but A is the answer I originally chose. After looking at explanations online, I now understand why C is correct. AC C negates the premise by establishing that Alicia and Peter actually had unequal blameworthiness, so it can't support the conclusion that Alicia should be treated the same as Peter.

However, I am still confused as to why A is wrong. The conclusion states that Alicia should have the same punishment as Peter which is automobile theft, not that Peter should have the same punishment as Alicia which is a warning. So, that must mean that both of them being charged with automobile theft is more "equal" punishment than them being both simply having a warning. Doesn't this only make sense if being charged with automobile theft is more just than getting a warning?

In other words, if A is true, then we would get a conclusion that Peter should be charged with the same punishment as Alicia. But that is the opposite of what the conclusion states. So wouldn't A need to be false?

Little Grasshopper

Here is food for thought. I see this with a lot people they just negate the premise or the conclusion. When you negate half an argument, it will be wrong. Meaning if you negate just either conclusion or the premise, it won't make it right in any universe. You have to negate both with the argument for the answer to jump out.What you have to do is negate the major premise and the conclusion together.

These two statements need to be negated to get the false answer.

Necessary condition:

but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior

Sufficient condition:
Therefore, Alicia should also have been charged with automobile theft.

Alicia should not be charged with automobile theft---> but since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior.

Diagramming the argument.

differenceInBehavior->!AliciaChargewithautotheft

The only thing I did was flip both statements to negate both to get the argument to be false.

The problem with answer choice A that is supports the argument and says both should receive the same punishment and get charge. Meaning she should be charged with auto theft and doesn't make it false. It has not impact on the argument also.

Answer choice B is wrong it doesn't address the issue.

C does address the issue her not being charged and cause the argument to be false. It is difference in behavior that causes the argument to be false.

D is out of scope and is not mentioned.

E is much like D

SmokyMountainBear-1-1

bubble this up. i am sure the comments make a lot of sense to many people, but i still have no clue why AC C is the correct answer. Any one please help?