Q17

[emilyostertag]

I'm not sure I understand why D is correct. What are the "unreasonable consequences" in each passage?

[maryadkins]

In the first passage, the unreasonable consequence appears in lines 24-26: the "harm to self others, and general trust that can come from the practice of lying."

In the second, it is lines 41-46: we would have a duty to do everything to everyone.

Tricky, to be sure.

The best way to get to (D), for me, was through process of elimination. I easily ruled out (A), (B), (C) and (E) because the passages pretty glaringly DON'T do these things. The only one I could make an argument for is (D).

[hanhansummer]

In the first passage, the unreasonable consequence appears in lines 24-26: the "harm to self others, and general trust that can come from the practice of lying."

In the second, it is lines 41-46: we would have a duty to do everything to everyone.

Tricky, to be sure.

The best way to get to (D), for me, was through process of elimination. I easily ruled out (A), (B), (C) and (E) because the passages pretty glaringly DON'T do these things. The only one I could make an argument for is (D).

I still don't get on this one.

The last sentence of Passage A suggests we should not lie to a pathological liar merely due to his personal characteristics, but should give a consideration to the harm to self, others, and general trust. I see no unreasonable consequences indicated, since there is nothing like "if we lie, it will cause blablabla (negative effects)."

Can you give a further explanation? Thx!

[laura.bach]

(Also missed this first time through)

On review, I agree that there's a clear reason to eliminate the others, and I think the key to (D) is: "suggesting that a view can have unreasonable consequences." Passage A doesn't commit to there being unreasonable consequences, it just alludes that there might be unreasonable (or, really, undesirable) consequences.

The lines you quoted are what I would reference, and I agree that it seems like a kind of tenacious connection, but "harm... that can come from the practice of lying" does suggest consequences, and the rest are just blatantly missing support, so (D) seems like the best bad answer.

[crocca]

Can someone please explain how A is ruled out?

I chose it because both passages present ideas that oppose their final conclusions - objections to their proposed theories, if you will. Passage A: Second paragraph talks about "justification repaying lies with lies...eye for eye...", and then the passage concludes that doing something bad does "not constitute sufficient reason" to do something bad back. Passage B: Lines 38-41, "might be concluded that we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done", and then concludes that actually we don't, although we do have the right. Where is my thinking off? Was between A and D, and A just seemed to have more support to me.

Gracias de antemano!

[krisk743]

How does the passage not do what C does.....

Two specific cases - saint augstine....then immanuel kant - are used that leads each passage to illustrate the issues of ethics and what not.

Don't see how C doesn't capture that better than anything else.

[LolaC289]

Can someone please explain how A is ruled out?

I chose it because both passages present ideas that oppose their final conclusions - objections to their proposed theories, if you will. Passage A: Second paragraph talks about "justification repaying lies with lies...eye for eye...", and then the passage concludes that doing something bad does "not constitute sufficient reason" to do something bad back. Passage B: Lines 38-41, "might be concluded that we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done", and then concludes that actually we don't, although we do have the right. Where is my thinking off? Was between A and D, and A just seemed to have more support to me.

Gracias de antemano!

I wrongly chose A during my practice test, mainly out of a major feeling that both passages have "refuted" some other opinions, more importantly, for I was under time pressure. But as I turned around, I actually found neither passage A or B conforms to answer choice A is really saying.

Passage A starts by mentioning the Saint Augustine's moral theory and the contradicting "an eye for an eye" theory, and the author showed consent to the first theory, addressing what could happen if we accept the latter view (line24-27, no only does it harms ourselves but also harms general trust). The author did not "anticipate" anything, he just put them out as two parallel choices which he personally showed preference to one of the two. The "eye for an eye" theory is not an objection, but rather an offered choice that he didn't choose to go along with.

Passage B also showed no existence of such objection anticipation. Be careful what answer choice A says is objection to the "theory", instead mere objection to the author's views. The theory mentioned in passage B is Kant's theory on how to treat liars, and line 43-47 addressed one potential bad consequence if we accept Kant's view. Mind you, these people are not objecting to Kant's theory. Quite the opposite, they accept Kant's theory! They are just concerned with certain unreasonable consequence that may go along with it. The author and these contender are just having different understanding on Kant's view, the author subsequently dismissed this concern by arguing that lie to liars is just a right, not a duty.

For reasons addressed above, answer choice A is wrong and D is correct.

[snoopy]

I still don't get on this one.
The last sentence of Passage A suggests we should not lie to a pathological liar merely due to his personal characteristics, but should give a consideration to the harm to self, others, and general trust. I see no unreasonable consequences indicated, since there is nothing like "if we lie, it will cause blablabla (negative effects)."
Can you give a further explanation? Thx!

We have to consider the "unreasonable consequences" - the harm inflicted to one's self, to others, and general trust that can come from the practice of lying. Replace "come from the practice of lying" with "result from the practice of lying." The "harm" that results from lying is the consequence.

Can someone please explain how A is ruled out?
I chose it because both passages present ideas that oppose their final conclusions - objections to their proposed theories, if you will. Passage A: Second paragraph talks about "justification repaying lies with lies...eye for eye...", and then the passage concludes that doing something bad does "not constitute sufficient reason" to do something bad back. Passage B: Lines 38-41, "might be concluded that we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done", and then concludes that actually we don't, although we do have the right. Where is my thinking off? Was between A and D, and A just seemed to have more support to me.
Gracias de antemano!

Both authors refute a possible consequence/implication to the moral theories, but to say they are the most probable objections is extreme. You're right in that Passage A and B state a theory/view and then object to it. None of the authors imply that these are the most probable. I'm also not keen on "probable" either - it makes it sound like there's a likelihood to these objections which aren't explicitly or implicitly referred to in the passage.

How does the passage not do what C does.....
Two specific cases - saint augstine....then immanuel kant - are used that leads each passage to illustrate the issues of ethics and what not.
Don't see how C doesn't capture that better than anything else.

I wouldn't say they're cases. They're perspectives. Specific case to illustrate a generalization would mean to provide how one specific example (i.e. Passage A mentioning pathological liar) illustrates a sweeping, generalizing statement which neither Passage A or B does. The illustration of issues in the ethics are objections, not generalizations.
I do see that Passage A does make a specific case about pathological liars, and it would be a leap to say that the "issues of ethics" brought up would be a generalization. But, even then, Passage B brings up no specific case similar to how Passage A brought up pathological liars.

But, again, neither Passage A or B extrapolate a generalization from specific examples because they were only bringing up a point of view and discussing the potential consequences of that view.