PrepTest 143

Incorrect. (Lines 19-21) Passage A uses the example of the harmless pathological liar, so it argues that immoral actions can be harmless. Passage B, however, doesn't discuss harm.

Incorrect. (Line 41) The closest either passage gets to discussing criminal wrongs is when Passage B talks about punishment. And even then, the passages don't discuss evaluating moral wrongs, but rather responding to moral wrongs.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Review the main points of each passage, especially as they relate to each other, and find an answer that reflects information in each

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
As with many Big Picture RC questions, we should have already spent some time thinking about this question.

When we first finished reading the passages, we reflected on the main points of each. For Passage A, we said that the Author presented two opposing views (turn the other cheek vs. eye for an eye) in Paragraphs 1 and 2. She then made a distinction between two moral questions inherent in the debate (Lines 14-15) before presenting an example that highlighted this distinction (Lines 19-21). From that, she answered the questions and provided some insight into the debate—the original transgressor can't complain if they get a taste of their own medicine, but that doesn't make retribution right.

For Passage B, we said that the Author starts by Kant's view—do unto others as you would have others do unto you (Lines 32-34). From there, he goes into an implication that some might conclude from it (Lines 38-41) before saying that this implication is wrong (Lines 41-42). While one might give others a right to punish them when they transgress, there's only a right to punish, not a duty (Lines 49-50), implied by Kant's philosophy.

So we said of their main points:

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.

And as to the overlap:

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!

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 23-24; Lines 46-52) Passage A argues that someone doing something wrong is not "sufficient reason to" do that wrong thing back to the person, answering this question in the negative. Passage B argues that Kant's philosophy leads to the conclusion that there's a right to respond to wrongdoing in kind (though not a duty), answering this question in the affirmative. While they reach different answers to this question, they both reach answers to it, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
While this question didn't ask for a central concern of the passages, these questions—especially when asked first—tend to have answers that reflect central themes or arguments of both passages. As such, treat them as main point questions, reflecting on the thesis of both Authors and the shared concern between them.

Incorrect. (Lines 45-49) Passage B distinguishes between a duty and a right—a duty is compelled action, while a right gives you the option to take action. Passage A, however, doesn't discuss this distinction.

Incorrect. (Lines 39-41) Passage B discusses rationality, but it's absent from the discussion in Passage A.