Reading comp PrepTest 143 · Section 2 · Question 20

Incorrect. (Lines 28-32) This is a very tempting answer. However, note what actor is being called irrational here—it's the person who is responding to the pathological liar. We need to make the Kantian view not apply to the pathological liar himself, so this answer just misses the mark.

Correct. Question Type:
Paradox

Strategy Overview:
Review the Kantian argument to establish an abstraction to be applied, then review the example in Passage A of the harmless pathological liar to see how it misses lining up with it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
We're going to do things a bit backwards from the question here, starting with Passage B and then heading to Passage A. Why? Because we're trying to make the example in Passage A compatible with the view in Passage B. It'll be much easier to know what we're trying to get Passage A to line up with so that we can then figure out which details are missing. If we did it the other way, we'd have no idea which elements of the harmless pathological liar situation are relevant!

So let's head to Paragraph 1 of Passage B. There, we get the Kantian view—when rational people act immorally towards others, they authorize similar actions as punishment towards themselves.

With that in mind, let's think about the harmless pathological liar. The question stem asks us to make the judgment from Passage A—that this person lying doesn't give others sufficient reason to lie—compatible with this judgment. That's weird, because the two seem at odds. Kant says that people who act in a certain way authorize others to act in that way to them, and Passage A says that lying to the liar isn't sufficiently justified just by the lie.

But here we have to focus on a key word in the question stem—"compatible." That doesn't mean the Kantian view has to justify the conclusion made by the Author of Passage A. Instead, the two just need to not contradict each other. And since if the Kantian view applies then they do contradict each other, the answer should add in a detail that means the Kantian view doesn't apply to the situation as described.

Looking again at what Kant's view stated, we can see a key element that isn't established in Passage A. In Kant's view, the transgressor must be a rational being. If we want to turn the situation from Passage A into one where Kant's rule doesn't apply, and thus the seemingly contradictory conclusion isn't a contradiction, then we should look for an answer stating that a pathological liar isn't rational.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 28-32) If pathological behavior can't be considered rational, then the pathological liar isn't acting rationally. As such, Kant's view doesn't apply, as it crucially relies on someone's status as a "rational being." And in making the example from Passage A fall outside the scope of Kant's view, the two are compatible since they don't contradict each other. While this answer establishes only that the person's actions are irrational, that's enough to strengthen this argument by suggesting the liar might be an irrational being, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
"Compatible" just means that two things don't contradict each other. Cheeseburgers being delicious is compatible with Alaska being cold. When a question asks about compatibility, it's talking about contradictions. That means you're likely dealing with a Cannot be True (if it's asking you to find a contradiction) or a Paradox question (if it's asking you to take a contradiction and resolve it).

Incorrect. If harmless pathological liars are rational (or at least should be treated as such), then Kant's view applies to them, and the contradiction stands.

Incorrect. (Lines 49-50) It's Passage B that's concerned with rights versus duties. Passage A cares only about rights—whether there's "sufficient reason" to lie to the liar. Additionally, this answer would make the situation in A line up with the Kantian view, which would mean that the contradictory conclusion drawn there isn't compatible with it.

Incorrect. (Lines 3-4) It's Passage A that talks about lowering standards, not Passage B/Kant's view, so this answer doesn't change anything in the relationship between the two, allowing the contradiction to stand.