Reading Comprehension

PT143 · S2 · P3 · Q20 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?

20.

Which one of the following, if true, would most help to make the suggestion in passage A that a harmless pathological liar's tall tales would not constitute sufficient reason to lie to him (second-to-last sentence of passage A) compatible with the Kantian argument laid out in the first paragraph of passage B?

Responding to pathological behavior with
Bad Match
If we were to respond to a pathological liar by lying to them, are we responding with pathological behavior? No. Pathologically lying vs. regular ol' lying, means compulsive and continuous lying. If we lie to a liar to teach them a lesson or give them their just desserts, we haven't suddenly switched into being compulsive liars. If this answer said, responding to pathological behavior with an example of that pathological behavior is irrational, it would help us argue that Kant (who likes being rational) would agree with A that we shouldn't lie to a pathological liar.
13% picked this
Correct
Rationality cannot be reasonably attributed
Why this is right
According to this answer, the pathological lying of a pathological liar cannot be considered "the product of a rational decision". If the lying isn't a rational decision, then we're not triggering the conditional at the end of Passage B's first paragraph. Thus, Kant is not telling us that "hey, lying to that pathological liar would be treating them as a rational being". So there's no longer any conflict between A's advice (don't lie to the liar) and Kant's advice (you should lie to the liar, if it was the product of a rational decision). This answer made these two views compatible.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
53% picked this
Pathological liars, if harmless, deserve
Opposite
This reinforces the incompatibility. If the pathological liar should be treated as a rational being, then Kant would say we should lie to them, whereas passage A would say we do not have sufficient reason to lie to them.
13% picked this
Having the right to lie
Bad Match: Not Compatible with Kant
We already heard this idea in the final paragraph of Passage B. In a sense, the author of passage B already made the takeaway from Passage A (you have the right to lie to a liar, but not a duty / not sufficient reason to lie to them". So the author of passage B ends up making Kant's view compatible with passage A by saying, "his view does not imply a duty, just a right." But for this question stem to make any sense, we needed to initially assumed some incompatibility with passage A and the Kantian argument in the 1st paragraph of B. The question stem essentially forces us to interpret Kant's argument the way the author ends up saying we shouldn't interpret it. If our initial two positions are in conflict, are potentially incompatible, we need to think of them as, A: even though you have the right to lie to a liar, you don't have sufficient reason to do so B: if the lying was the product of a rational decision, then lying to a liar is treating them as a rational being (you do have sufficient reason to do so) Kant isn't using the word duty, but in order for us to see a inconsistency between A's and Kant's position, we sort of need to act like that's what Kant's argument is saying. Thus, this answer would essentially contradict the Kantian position, not make it compatible with the position from passage A. We might think, "This makes it compatible, because it settles the issue -- Passage A was right and Kant was wrong." But the correct answer is saying, "Both passage A and Kant were right -- they can agree we wouldn't lie to a pathological liar since a pathological liar's lies aren't the products of rational decision making."
19% picked this
To model one's behavior on
Bad Match: Not Compatible with Kant
This would support the idea that we shouldn't lie to a liar, but that means it's making Kant sound wrong. He was saying, "Maybe you should lie to a liar, since that would be treating them as a rational being". This doesn't find a way to reconcile Kant's position with A's position. It basically just takes A's side.
2% 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