Reading Comprehension

PT143 · S2 · P3 · Q19 A Lie for a Lie

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

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

Passage A

Topic

The moral justification (or lack thereof) for lying to liars, including distinctions between rights and duties as explored through Augustine and Kantian philosophy.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The passages examine whether it is morally permissible (or even obligatory) to lie to liars, highlighting the distinction between viewing the act as a forfeiture of the right to honesty or creating a duty to repay lies with lies; ultimately, both passages challenge the idea that previous wrongdoing justifies counter-wrongdoing without qualification. The Most Valuable Sentences:

Passage A: (final paragraph)

Passage B: (final paragraph)

P1: Augustine’s View – Passing on Wrongdoing Is Not Justified (Passage A)

Augustine argues that responding to lies by lying is as morally wrong as fighting robbery with robbery. It's a lowering of moral standards to meet the level of the wrongdoer.

P2: Counterpoint – The Eye-for-an-Eye Appeal (Passage A)

Still, many people feel it's fair to lie to liars—sort of a taste of their own medicine. There’s a sense of balance: just as bullies lose their right not to be pushed around, liars forfeit their right to honest treatment.

P3: Clarifying the Moral Questions (Passage A)

The author breaks the issue into two questions: Do liars have the same right to truth as honest people? Are we more justified in lying to liars than to others?

19.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the difference between the kind of right referred to in the last sentence of the second paragraph of passage A and the kind of right referred to in the third-to-last sentence of passage B?

In passage A, the kind
Fails A: legal right
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% picked this
In passage A, the kind
Out of Scope: position of authority
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.
5% picked this
In passage A, the kind
Fails A: groups
The right not to be bullied as well as the right to bully someone who's bullied you are both individual rights.
9% picked this
In passage A, the kind
Contradicted: Passage A
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.
3% picked this
Correct
In passage A, 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.
79% picked this

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