#16 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10859)

The correct answer choice is (A)

The answer to this question is difficult to prephrase, but the correct choice will provide a topic referenced only in passage A.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The potential harm that may result as a consequence of lying to liars is discussed in passage A (last paragraph), but not in passage B.

Answer choice (B): Neither passage deals with the consequences of failing to reciprocate another’s wrongdoing.

Answer choice (C): This is the Opposite answer. Rational actions are only discussed in passage B, not passage A.

Answer choice (D): This is another Opposite answer. The issue of respect due to people who break moral rules is discussed exclusively in passage B, not in passage A.

Answer choice (E): Both authors assert that being treated as one treats others leaves a person no right to complain, so neither passage considers instances in which wrongdoers have been wronged.

[swong1267]

Where exactly does the text consider the harm that might result?

[Claire Horan]

The last sentence of Passage A reads:

For the harm to self, others, and general trust that can come from the practice of lying has to be taken into account in weighing how to deal with him, not merely his personal characteristics.

Let us know if you have any more questions!

[alexmcc]

Lines 41-46 tripped me up with answer A. It seems like those lines are also referring to a harmful consequence of treating people as they treat others, that "we would have a duty to do rational persons everything-- good, bad, or indifferent -- that they do to others".

Ahh I got it. So those lines 41-46 aren't referencing any HARM that comes from the practice of treating people as they treat others, rather lines 41-46 just say that the practice of treating people as they treat others would be a consequence of Kantianism if Kantianism was about duties to others and not rights one has.

[Who Ray]

Hey Alex!

Sounds like you got it!

Cheers
Who ray

[rahimlsat]

Hi,

I have an issue with A that I can't seem to resolve. A is saying that the "harm that may result as a consequence of treating people as they treat others", i.e. the consequences of lying to people who lie to others. But passage A didn't say that we need to consider the harm of lying to liars; all it said was that we need to consider whether people who have lied have committed harm in the process, and depending on whether they have or not, we either would or would not be justified in lying to them.

The harm mentioned in the passage is different than the harm referred to in the answer A.

Can you please clarify?

[Adam Tyson]

Check the last sentence of Passage A, rahimlsat - there, the author is expressing concern over the harm that comes from the general practice of lying, which includes lying to liars. He's saying that even though a liar loses his right to demand that others tell him the truth, it's still wrong for us to lie to him, because lying is generally bad for all of us. If we were to lie to the liar, everyone is harmed by the continued cycle of lies! Author B never considers any such harms.

[TheKingLives]

I'm curious as to why B is incorrect. Line 10 seems to establish answer choice B in passage A, and I don't see it in passage B. I also struggle to see how answer choice isn't at least somewhat introduced in passage B, with the description of the compelled action labeled as "excessive."

[Adam Tyson]

That line you referenced refers to the consequences of reciprocating another's wrongdoing, TheKingLives, but answer B is about what happens if we do NOT reciprocate. Author A never discusses what would happen if we did NOT lie to a liar, or if we chose NOT to bully a bully, etc. Don't make assumptions about what the author would say about this topic, but base your answer solely on what they explicitly stated. Harm comes from telling a lie, and we don't know what comes from remaining truthful. Something good? Something neutral? A different type of harm?

Author B is saying that concluding that we MUST lie to a liar under the Kantian view is an excessive interpretation of that view. Not a harmful one, just carrying the idea farther than is warranted. And even if that view is excessive, that does not mean that someone who actually views it that way and acts accordingly is causing any harm. They would just be mistaken, according to this author. So author B never talks at all about any harm that might result from exercising our right to lie to a liar.