A is the only answer which contains information included in Passage A.
As I went through the choices to eliminate incorrect answers, once I found no inclusion of the answer in Passage A, I crossed it out and wasted no time looking for it in Passage B. This approach helped me move more quickly than looking at each answer to see if there was a discrepancy between the two passages. That was the way I had previously been approaching these types of questions.
For answer E, which is the answer I chose during the test, I initially thought that lines 23 - 27 would be an "instance in which people have been wronged by being treated as they treat others." However, the summary of those lines is actually more that being lied to by a pathological liar is not a sufficient reason in itself to lie back to them, because the results of the lies from the pathological liar are harmless. The fact that the lies are harmless should inform the decision of whether to lie back. No mention of how it will harm the pathological liar.
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- katie.raitz
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 6
- Joined: August 06th, 2016
- This post thanked 1 time.
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q16
Question Type:
ID Information
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
This could come from anywhere potentially, but if we think about the disconnect between these two passages on the central topic of "should/can you lie to a liar", it seems like 14-27 has a two-pronged discussion, and passage B only deals with the first prong: whether or not you have the right to lie to a liar. The second prong in psg A is laid out in 18-20 and 23-27.
Any prephrase?
Where A diverged from B was in saying that "even though you may have the RIGHT to lie to a liar, that doesn't mean you SHOULD. After all, the decision to lie isn't just about whether your audience is a liar, but also what harm your lie would cause you, others, and general trust."
Correct answer:
A
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Yes. Lines 24-27 touch on this, but passage B never speaks to the HARM of lying to a liar or robbing a robber.
(B) This is in B, but not A. In B, if you DON'T lie to a liar, you are potentially failing to treat them like a rational being.
(C) Rationality was in B, not A.
(D) Both passages seem to address this, in the sense that both authors acknowledge that "someone who bullies forfeits the right to not be bullied", "implicitly authorizing similar actions as punishment aimed toward themselves".
(E) Neither passage gives us an example where a liar was wronged by being lied to (or something fitting that same form).
Takeaway/Pattern: Many times, this type of "what was in ONE but not THE OTHER" question will address a specific ingredient or detail. In this case, it actually went after the central distinction between what the two authors are saying about their common topic.
#officialexplanation
ID Information
Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
This could come from anywhere potentially, but if we think about the disconnect between these two passages on the central topic of "should/can you lie to a liar", it seems like 14-27 has a two-pronged discussion, and passage B only deals with the first prong: whether or not you have the right to lie to a liar. The second prong in psg A is laid out in 18-20 and 23-27.
Any prephrase?
Where A diverged from B was in saying that "even though you may have the RIGHT to lie to a liar, that doesn't mean you SHOULD. After all, the decision to lie isn't just about whether your audience is a liar, but also what harm your lie would cause you, others, and general trust."
Correct answer:
A
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Yes. Lines 24-27 touch on this, but passage B never speaks to the HARM of lying to a liar or robbing a robber.
(B) This is in B, but not A. In B, if you DON'T lie to a liar, you are potentially failing to treat them like a rational being.
(C) Rationality was in B, not A.
(D) Both passages seem to address this, in the sense that both authors acknowledge that "someone who bullies forfeits the right to not be bullied", "implicitly authorizing similar actions as punishment aimed toward themselves".
(E) Neither passage gives us an example where a liar was wronged by being lied to (or something fitting that same form).
Takeaway/Pattern: Many times, this type of "what was in ONE but not THE OTHER" question will address a specific ingredient or detail. In this case, it actually went after the central distinction between what the two authors are saying about their common topic.
#officialexplanation
2 posts Page 1 of 1