A Lie for a Lie

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

TopicsMeaning in ContextHumanities

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

Free to start

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

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

Meaning in Context

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

19.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the difference between the kind of right referred to in passage A (second paragraph) and the kind of right referred

Answer choices

Fails A: legal right4% picked this
In passage A, the kind of right referred to is a legal right, whereas in passage B the kind of right referred
Both passages are speaking about rights, more in the moral sense than in the legal sense. The first right you have morally prohibits everyone else from doing bad thing X to you. The second right you have is your moral permission to do X to do someone else (someone who's done X to you).
4%
Out of Scope: position of authority6% picked this
In passage A, the kind of right referred to involves benefits granted by society, whereas in passage B the kind of right referred to
Neither one is talking about a right invested by a position of authority, like a leader of state or a constitution. They're both talking about moral rights to which we're all entitled.
6%
Fails A: groups10% picked this
In passage A, the kind of right referred to is an entitlement held by groups of people, whereas in passage B the kind of
The right not to be bullied as well as the right to bully someone who's bullied you are both individual rights.
10%
Contradicted: Passage A4% picked this
In passage A, the kind of right referred to is something that cannot be given up, whereas in passage B the kind of right
The reference to right in passage A is actually saying that someone forfeits (gives up) the right in certain circumstances. So we know that passage A would not say it's a right that cannot be given up.
4%
Correct77% picked this
In passage A, the kind of right referred to involves behavior that one is entitled to from others, whereas in passage B the kind
Why this is right
The right not to be bullied is referring to behavior you're entitled to from others. Others aren't allowed to bully you. You're entitled to more respectful behavior. The right, but not the duty, to do to offenders what they have done involves our ability to behave towards them in a way we wouldn't ordinarily be entitled to. We aren't usually licensed to engage in lying or bullying, but we have the right to do so to someone who has lied to or bullied us.
Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
77%

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill

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