Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT143 S2 P3 Q15 Explanation

A Lie for a Lie

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsPrimary PurposeHumanities

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage

Saint Augustine wrote that to proceed against lies by lying would be like countering robbery with robbery. To respond to wrongdoing by emulating it to accept lower standards.

And yet it has seemed to many that there is indeed some justification for repaying lies with lies. Such views go back as far as the kind of justice that demands an eye for an eye. They appeal to our sense of fairness: to lie to liars is to give them what with by others, so liars forfeit the right to be dealt with honestly.

Two separate moral questions are involved in this debate. The first asks whether a liar has the same claim to be told the truth as an honest person. The second asks whether to a liar than to others.

In order to see this distinction clearly, consider a person known by all to be a pathological liar but quite harmless. Surely, as the idea of forfeiture suggests, the liar would have no cause for complaint if lied to. But his tall tales would not constitute sufficient reason to lie to him. account in weighing how to deal with him, not merely his personal characteristics.

Passage

A view derived from Immanuel Kant holds that when rational beings act immorally toward others, then, by virtue of their status as rational beings, they implicitly authorize similar actions as punishment aimed toward themselves. That is, acting rationally, one always acts as one would have others act toward oneself. Consequently, to act is, as if that person’s act is the product of a rational decision.

From this it might be concluded that we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done, since this amounts to according them the respect due rational beings. But the assertion of a duty to punish seems excessive, since if this duty to others is necessary to accord them the there is no injustice, and where there is no injustice, others have acted within their rights.

What this question is testing

Primary Purpose

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

Both passages are concerned with answering which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Fails B1% picked this

    Can immoral actions be

    "Harmless" is used in the beginning of A's final paragraph as a mere descriptor of a hypothetical pathological liar. The author wasn't trying to answer a question about harmlessness. She just posed a thought experiment and said, "Suppose this dude were harmless." Passage B doesn't seem to ever address the question of whether immoral actions are sometimes harmless.

  2. Out of Scope: criminal wrong1% picked this

    Should the same rules apply in evaluating moral wrongs and

    Both passages are dealing only with interpersonal morality -- do we have moral rights to lie to liars. Neither passage ventures into criminal law.

  3. Correct97% picked this

    Is it right to respond to a person's wrongdoing with an action of

    Why this is right

    This certainly matches passage A's central question of "should you lie to a liar"? Should you reciprocate the wrongdoing that they did unto you? The author of passage A ultimately answers this question by saying, "Well ... you could lie to them, but lying has a constellation of negative effects and it might be a bad move overall to lie because of that." And passage B discusses Kant's view of this same moral question. Kant seems to be saying, "You kind of should respond to a rational person with an action of the same kind, because that shows you treat them as a rational being." The author of B feels more like the author of A, saying "you have a right to respond in kind, but you're not obligated to.

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. No Support for A1% picked this

    What is the difference between a duty and

    While passage B displays an awareness of a distinction between duty and right, it never asks that question or provides an answer. More importantly, passage A never brings up duty whatsoever.

  5. No Support for A0% picked this

    Is it just to treat all wrongdoers as

    While passage B definitely discusses Kant's notion that wrongdoers, if they are rational beings, are justly treated with the same wrongdoing they inflicted on us, passage B never addresses whether we should treat all wrongdoers as rational beings? (Even people who are mentally ill / even crimes of passion?) More importantly, passage A never discusses the concept of rationality at all.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free