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
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Humanities
Answer choices
-
AIn passage A, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-12) When talking about bullies being bullied, we're not talking legal rights. And in both cases, the right being discussed is based on different views of morality, so what this answer says about Passage B's right wouldn't be a difference. -
BIn passage A, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-12; Lines 49-50) Neither of these answers is correct. Society doesn't give the benefit of not being bullied—it's grounded in moral rights. And same with treating others as they themselves treat others. -
CIn passage A, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 11-12; Lines 41-42) Passage A does talk about "bullies," which counts as a group. However, the right it discusses is something that applies to each individual bully, not bullies as a group. And Passage B speaks about "punishing" people who have done wrong, which isn't a right that exists only in individuals, as the state is allowed to punish criminals. -
DIn passage A, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Line 11; Lines 47-48) Line 11 says that bullies "forfeit" their right, so it absolutely is something that can be given up. And Passage B creates a general right to act towards others as they themselves act. That right doesn't disappear based on certain actions—those actions just change what actions are authorized by the right. -
EIn passage A, the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Meaning in Context/Point at Issue
Strategy Overview:
Review the cited lines in each passage in the context of their paragraphs and the passage as a whole, and then compare those two to see how they differ
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
Passage A/Lines 11-13 - These lines show up in Paragraph 2, which we said was meant to outline the "eye for an eye" view. In the line specifically, it notes that bullies give up their right not to be bullied by acting as bullies. So this right is about what people can expect from others—some have a right not to be bullied by others, but bullies give up this right.
Passage B/Line 50 - This line shows up in Paragraph 2 of Passage B, which was meant to bring up a potential implication that the Author believes doesn't follow from Kant's view. This line is after the pivot, so it's a part of the Author's response, where he argues that there isn't a duty to do to wrongdoers what they did to others. And we noted that he drew a distinction between a right and a duty. The line in question points out that distinction. In context, the previous line talks about how a wrongdoer authorizes others to treat them the same, but he doesn't compel them to do so. So a person has a right/is authorized to treat someone else as that person treats others. In this case, the right is something that someone is allowed to do.
So in Passage A, the right speaks to an expectation of how others will treat you, and in Passage B, the right is something that you're allowed to do to others.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 11-12; Lines 47-48) Passage A talks about the "right not to be interfered with by others," so it's a behavior one is entitled to from others. Passage B talks about the right as doing what others have authorized you to do through their own actions—in other words, it's a right you have to act a certain way.
Key Takeaway:
When tasked with comparing certain elements in two passages, start by considering them separately. This will set up a baseline understanding that will make the comparison a lot easier. To think about why, imagine trying to compare two pieces of music by listening to them at the same time—that would mostly end up a muddled mess!
What this tests
Discussion
-
Explanation? 5 replies
Started by kelsgorman