When Alicia Green borrowed a

Answer choices

1. A

   Could Be True22% picked this

   The interests of justice would have been better served if the police had released Peter

   This is a value judgment about what the police should have done with Peter. It does not conflict with any premise — the premises describe what actually happened, not what would have served justice better. Whether justice would have been better served by a warning to Peter is consistent with everything the author told us.

   22%
2. B

   Could Be True8% picked this

   Alicia Green had never before driven a car belonging to someone else without first securing

   Alicia's history of never having borrowed a car without permission before is consistent with the premises. The argument concerns this single incident and whether the damage outcome reflects different blameworthiness; Alicia's prior record is neither asserted nor denied by anything in the support.

   8%
3. C

   Correct53% picked this

   Peter Foster was hit by the taxi while he was running a red light, whereas Alicia Green drove with extra care to avoid drawing

   Why this is right

   This answer says Peter was hit while running a red light, and Alicia drove carefully. If Peter ran a red light at the moment of the collision, then Peter's own blameworthy behavior contributed to getting hit — meaning the damage to his car was due to something blameworthy he did. That directly contradicts the explicit premise: "since it was the taxi that caused the damage this difference was not due to any difference in the blameworthiness of their behavior." The author has stipulated that the damage outcome is independent of the drivers' blameworthiness; this answer makes it dependent on Peter's blameworthiness. It cannot be true alongside the premises.

   Skill tested: Must be False · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   53%
4. D

   Could Be True10% picked this

   Alicia Green barely missed hitting a pedestrian when she sped through a red light ten minutes before she was stopped by the police for

   Alicia running a red light ten minutes before being stopped does not affect any premise. The premise constrains the cause of the damage to Peter's car (the taxi, not behavior). What Alicia did separately, ten minutes earlier, is a free-floating fact about her conduct — it could be true while the cause-of-damage premise still holds.

   10%
5. E

   Could Be True7% picked this

   Peter Foster had been cited for speeding twice in the preceding month, whereas Alicia Green had never been

   Peter's history of speeding tickets and Alicia's clean record concern past behavior, not the current incident or its damage. Nothing in the premises forbids different driving histories. This can be true alongside the support.

   7%