Reading comp PrepTest 143 · Section 2 · Question 18
Passage
Questions 15-20 . Passage A . Saint Augustine wrote that to proceed against lies . by lying would be like
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Social Science
Passage A
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Passage A - While a wrongdoer doesn't have a moral right to object to being similarly treated, the person returning their actions should consider the harm done to the wrongdoer and others.
Passage B - Kant's moral rule "Do unto others . . . " should be viewed as a right to punish wrongdoing, not a duty to do so.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 3-4 - A view is described
Lines 5-6 - An opposing view is described
Lines 14-18 - Two questions are posed that highlight a distinction
Lies 19-21 - An example is introduced to more clearly highlight the distinction
Passage B:
Lines 32-34 - The main viewpoint of the passage is introduced
Lines 38-39 - A potential implication of this view is raised
Lines 49-50 - The Author rejects the implication and substitutes her own
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Opposing viewpoint - Passage A brings up two viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to each other. One side says you should turn the other cheek, while the other says an eye for an eye.
Question/Answer - Passage A raises two questions to determine which of the two viewpoints are correct.
Distinction - Both passages raise distinctions. Passage A distinguishes between the rights of the wrongdoer (can they expect others to do right?) and the justification for those wronged (is it justified for them to do wrong back?). Passage B distinguishes between a duty and a right (Line 50) to punish those who have done wrong.
Extended Example - Passage A uses an extended example (Paragraph 4) to ground a rather technical distinction that it makes in Paragraph 3.
Both passages do deal with similar questions, though, of doing right and wrong and whether responding to a wrong act with another wrong act is right/justified. Passage A says that the original wrongdoer can't expect others to do right by them, but those who were wronged aren't necessarily justified in returning the favor because the harm it does must be considered. Passage B, on the other hand, does believe that there's a right to punish those who do wrong—to return the favor—but there's not a duty to do so. Different answers to the same question there!
Last Thoughts:
These were pretty technical and philosophical, so we should be sure that we read each answer carefully so as to not miss any subtle nuances or language mismatches that throw an answer off.
Also, note how we used some common idioms to sum up ideas that were presented in a very technical manner. A lot of the time, the LSAT will do this—take a concept with which you're familiar and complicate it with obtuse language! If you can see through it and pick up on the base concept, sum it up using that—it'll be a lot easier to deal with.
Passage A
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- One view is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Ex. Augustine
- Two wrongs don't make a right
- Paragraph note
- An opposing view is presented
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Repaying a wrong with a wrong has justification
- Ex. Eye for an eye; fair; equilibrium
- Paragraph note
- 2 questions are raised
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Does a liar have a right to be told the truth?
- Is it more justified to lie to a liar?
- Paragraph note
- The questions are distinguished with a hypothetical (and somewhat answered)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Ex - Harmless pathological liar
- Question 1 - No, he can't complain if lied to
- Question 2 - Lying to him isn't justified, as harm to him and others has to be considered
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- A philosopher's view is examined
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Kant - Do unto others . . .
- When you do unto others as they've done unto you, you imply they're rational
- Paragraph note
- A potential implication is considered and argued against with a distinction
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
- Potential implication - We have a duty to punish wrongdoers
- Distinction - Authorize versus compel; right versus duty—we're allowed to punish offenders, but we don't have to
Passage A - While a wrongdoer doesn't have a moral right to object to being similarly treated, the person returning their actions should consider the harm done to the wrongdoer and others.
Passage B - Kant's moral rule "Do unto others . . . " should be viewed as a right to punish wrongdoing, not a duty to do so.
Key Lines:
Passage A:
Lines 3-4 - A view is described
Lines 5-6 - An opposing view is described
Lines 14-18 - Two questions are posed that highlight a distinction
Lies 19-21 - An example is introduced to more clearly highlight the distinction
Passage B:
Lines 32-34 - The main viewpoint of the passage is introduced
Lines 38-39 - A potential implication of this view is raised
Lines 49-50 - The Author rejects the implication and substitutes her own
Meta-Structure - Relationship Between Passages:
Opposing viewpoint - Passage A brings up two viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to each other. One side says you should turn the other cheek, while the other says an eye for an eye.
Question/Answer - Passage A raises two questions to determine which of the two viewpoints are correct.
Distinction - Both passages raise distinctions. Passage A distinguishes between the rights of the wrongdoer (can they expect others to do right?) and the justification for those wronged (is it justified for them to do wrong back?). Passage B distinguishes between a duty and a right (Line 50) to punish those who have done wrong.
Extended Example - Passage A uses an extended example (Paragraph 4) to ground a rather technical distinction that it makes in Paragraph 3.
Both passages do deal with similar questions, though, of doing right and wrong and whether responding to a wrong act with another wrong act is right/justified. Passage A says that the original wrongdoer can't expect others to do right by them, but those who were wronged aren't necessarily justified in returning the favor because the harm it does must be considered. Passage B, on the other hand, does believe that there's a right to punish those who do wrong—to return the favor—but there's not a duty to do so. Different answers to the same question there!
Last Thoughts:
These were pretty technical and philosophical, so we should be sure that we read each answer carefully so as to not miss any subtle nuances or language mismatches that throw an answer off.
Also, note how we used some common idioms to sum up ideas that were presented in a very technical manner. A lot of the time, the LSAT will do this—take a concept with which you're familiar and complicate it with obtuse language! If you can see through it and pick up on the base concept, sum it up using that—it'll be a lot easier to deal with.
Question prompt
The author of passage
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: C
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
AMaintaining a policy of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 39-41) As we've seen in several questions up to this point, it's Passage B—not Passage A—that discusses rational beings. (And this was the view that the Author of Passage B dismisses!) -
BPeople have a duty Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 41-46) The discussion of duty shows up in Passage B, and this answer reflects the unreasonable consequence of a conclusion that the Author of that passage dismisses. -
CIt can be unjustified Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point of Passage A, then dive into the answers, using that understanding to focus on answers that line up with it, then hopping into the passage to find backing
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
There's not a lot of guidance here, and this question doesn't ask us about something that Passage A says but B doesn't, so all we have to go off of is our big-picture understanding of Passage A.
After reading it, we said that the main point was:
While a wrongdoer doesn't have a moral right to object to being similarly treated, the person returning their actions should consider the harm done to the wrongdoer and others.
Let's head to the answers and focus on ones that line up with this view.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 20-27) This answer lines up with our overall understanding of Passage A's argument. In Paragraph 3, the Author presents two questions—should a wrongdoer expect better treatment than they give?; and is it justified to wrong a wrongdoer? Paragraph 4 has answers—no to the first, and no to the second, since the harm to self, others, and the wider impact must be considered. So the Author believes that someone who has done something wrong has forfeited the right to expect better treatment (Lines 21-22), but that doesn't mean it's right to treat them that way (Lines 23-24). This answer is therefore correct.
Key Takeaway:
Some Comparative RC questions aren't Comparative RC questions. As far as this question is concerned, Passage B is irrelevant . . .
Or is it? While we don't need Passage B to answer this question, it can be helpful in evaluating answers. Some of those answers will have shown up in Passage B. This doesn't mean they're wrong—they could reflect details that were present in both passages—but they're a bit more suspect. Generally, we'd defer on these answers and come back to them only if none of the other answers showed up in Passage A. -
DThere is no circumstance Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 23-27) The Author of Passage A argues that a person telling harmless lies doesn't justify lying back to them. However, in stating that the lie in that case isn't "sufficient reason" to lie back because harm must be considered, that leaves open room for there to be other situations where responding to a wrong act with another wrong act might be right—e.g., if the harm in doing the wrong thing is less than the harm in doing the right thing. -
ETo restore moral equilibrium, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 23-24) An innocent person forfeiting their right to be treated in a certain way? That's not mentioned in either passage. The closest Passage A gets to saying this is when it argues that an innocent person doesn't necessarily have the right to respond to a wrong with another wrong—but that's not the same as forfeiting their right to be treated in a certain way.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
Deeper help
Ask follow-ups on any step
Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.
Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.
Discussion
-
Please elaborate further 3 replies
Started by @MichaelaJ