Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT143 S2 P3 Q17 Explanation

A Lie for a Lie

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

TopicsMethodHumanities

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

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
17.

The passages are alike in that each seeks to advance its main

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: most probable objections22% picked this

    anticipating and refuting the most probable objections to

    It's not clear in passage A that there's any theory at all. The author seems to just be offering her take on an age old moral question: should you lie to a liar? She only really brings up opposing ideas in the beginning, in her 2nd paragraph, just to get the conversation rolling. But they aren't objections to her "theory". They are just a point of view that she plans to object to. Passage B's second paragraph begins by anticipating a possible reaction to the Kantian argument in the first paragraph: From this it might be concluded that ... But not only can we not say that's an objection to the theory (it's just a possible takeaway), we also only know that "people might conclude X from this", not that "the most probable reaction to this is X".

  2. Fails B: analogy10% picked this

    using an analogy to support its

    Passage A's first line contains an analogy relevant to its overall argument, but passage B never provides any analogy to support its overall claim that responding to wrongdoers with similar wrong behavior is something we're allowed to do, but not necessarily something we should be doing.

  3. Fails B: specific case11% picked this

    focusing on a specific case to illustrate

    Passage A's thought experiment about a pathological liar could probably be construed as "a specific case to illustrate a generalization", but passage B doesn't have any specific cases at all.

  4. Correct55% picked this

    suggesting that a view can have

    Why this is right

    The view that "justice demands an eye for an eye" can have unreasonable consequences, according to passage A, because lying to a liar can bring "harm to self, others, and general trust". It would be unreasonable to say I should lie to a liar if doing so had the unreasonable consequence of making life worse for me, others, and society. In passage B, the second paragraph is all about shutting down a mistaken consequence people might infer from the views of Kant in the first paragraph: From this it might be concluded that we have a duty to reciprocate harm to offenders. But the assertion of a duty to punish seems excessive (i.e. unreasonable).

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

  5. Out of Scope: new definition2% picked this

    offering and defending a new definition for a commonly

    I'm not sure what new definition to a commonly used term is offered by either passage.

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