PrepTest 143
[lcid:3669] Prep Test 143 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2
Reading comp
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 passages are alike
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: D
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
Aanticipating and refuting the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 38-39) Passage B brings up a potential conclusion that might be drawn from a certain philosophy. However, that's not the same as the "most probably" objection—it's not even really an objection! And this method of reasoning doesn't feature in Passage A, where two views are raised and questions relevant to the debate are brought up. -
Busing an analogy to Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-13) Passage A arguably uses an analogy in comparing bullies to liars, but Passage B doesn't have any similar feature. -
Cfocusing on a specific Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 19-21) Passage A brings up the example of the harmless pathological liar. While it's a hypothetical, it's specific enough to likely count for this answer. However, Passage B doesn't have a similar feature. -
Dsuggesting that a view Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning
Strategy Overview:
Review our paragraph notes for each passage, identify any overlap, then head to the answers
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Taking a look at what we noted of the reasoning behind Passage A, we can see that the passage presents two views (Paragraphs 1 and 2, including an expert), provides a couple examples (Lines 1-2; Lines 19-21), raises questions (Paragraph 3), and draws a distinction (Paragraph 3; Line 19).
Passage B examines a view of an expert (Lines 28-34), brings up a potential implication (Lines 38-39), and then argues against that implication by drawing a distinction between certain concepts (Lines 48-50).
So both passages analyze the view of an expert (Augustine; Kant) and draw a distinction. Let's look for either of those answers, or anything else that lines up with our understanding of the passage.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 23-27; Lines 41-42) Passage A notes that the view "an eye for an eye" can lead to someone causing harm to themselves, others, and the general trust by lying to a liar—that's definitely an unreasonable consequence. And Passage B says that the potential conclusion from Kant's argument leads to the unreasonable ("excessive") consequence that we'd have to return everyone's positive, negative, and neutral acts to them. Both feature unreasonable consequences of certain beliefs, making this the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Note the key words in the correct answer—unreasonable, and consequences. If you focus on those words, you might have an easier time focusing on the right answer. After all, were the passages concerned with reason—what it's reasonable to do? Yep. And did they both talk about consequences? Most definitely—both of doing wrong and in returning that wrong. -
Eoffering and defending a Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 14-15; Lines 46-50) This might be a tempting answer! Both passages draw distinctions. However, they don't do so by defining commonly used terms in new ways. Passage A distinguishes between what a wrongdoer can expect and what a wronged party should do, and Passage B distinguishes between two terms by relying on their common definitions (right vs duty; authorize vs compel).
What this tests
Discussion
-
Answer Choice D 2 replies
Started by DavidW