Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby secretad » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:51 pm

The correct answer is C. I had to guess on this one because I thought all five answer choices could be true in this could be true EXCEPT question.

Answer choice C states that Peter was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light (which could be true) and it states that Alicia drove with extra care to avoid drawing attention, which COULD be true as well! How is this a must be false answer? Just because Alicia was pulled over for defective taillights does not mean that she did not drive it with extra care. She may have had no idea that the taillights were defective. So this could be true.

User avatar
Cade McNown
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby Cade McNown » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:54 pm

secretad wrote:The correct answer is C. I had to guess on this one because I thought all five answer choices could be true in this could be true EXCEPT question.

Answer choice C states that Peter was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light (which could be true) and it states that Alicia drove with extra care to avoid drawing attention, which COULD be true as well! How is this a must be false answer? Just because Alicia was pulled over for defective taillights does not mean that she did not drive it with extra care. She may have had no idea that the taillights were defective. So this could be true.


you should post the whole stimulus.

barnum
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby barnum » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:15 pm

The passage states that "the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior."

In answer choice C it says that Peter ran a red light. That would contradict this in that there would now be reason to place blame on Peter for the damage to the car.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby secretad » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:21 pm

Edited to not make LSAC upset.
Last edited by secretad on Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

secretad
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby secretad » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:25 pm

barnum wrote:The passage states that "the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior."

In answer choice C it says that Peter ran a red light. That would contradict this in that there would now be reason to place blame on Peter for the damage to the car.


Thanks for that. I missed that factor in the answer choice that would then shift the blameworthiness aspect.

User avatar
Jackson Pollock
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:22 am

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby Jackson Pollock » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:28 pm

secretad wrote: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.

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

The correct answer is C:

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.


If Peter ran the red light, that would directly contradict the red above. The stimulus is arguing that the actions of both parties are equal, only because the accident wasn't Peter's fault. But he is more blameworthy for the accident if he caused the accident through his negligence. Therefore, the supporting premises could not be true if C is true.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Am I missing something obvious on PrepTest 7: LR Sec. 1 #19?

Postby EarlCat » Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:42 pm

Cade McNown wrote:you should post the whole stimulus.

LSAC gets bent out of shape when you do this.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw, jagerbom79, SweetTort and 15 guests