QUESTION TEXT: The passages are alike in that each seeks to…
DISCUSSION: This question diverges slightly from RC trends. Normally, it’s possible to explicitly prove answers with line references. However, while I think the right answer is 100% correct, I can’t point to a pair of lines that proves it definitively.
Specifically, the right answer describes what both passages are doing, but using different words. Neither passage said “unreasonable consequences”. It’s fine to use different words to refer to the same concept. The LSAT expects you to be comfortable with using synonyms and calling something by a different but equivalent name.
___________
- I was tempted by this because both passages disagree with opposing arguments. But that’s not the same thing as “anticipating and refuting” objections, which is a very specific form of argument.
I’ve made an example below that matches the structure in this answer. It has the same content, but the order is different. In the stimulus the author started with the theory they objected to, and ended with their conclusion. In my example, I start with the conclusion, reject it, then refute the rejection.
Example of anticipating and refuting rejection: We should lie to someone just because they are a liar. This is my theory. You might object that they deserve it. But that’s not sufficient justification on its own. - An analogy is when you compare one situation to another situation. There are no analogies in either passage. For instance, the pathological liar in passage A is an example, not an analogy.
- Passage A focusses on a specific case in lines 19-27. But passage B doesn’t use any specific cases.
- CORRECT. In passage A, the view is the eye for an eye view described in paragraph 2: we should treat people as they treat others.
The final paragraph shows that this view has unreasonable consequences: the view implies that we should lie to a harmless liar, even though by doing so we could harm ourselves or society.
Line 38 says “from this it might be concluded” that we have a duty to treat people as they treat others. This is the unreasonable consequence that the author disagrees with. In lines 41-46 the author says it seems “excessive” to completely mirror people.
As I wrote in the analysis, you can’t literally prove this answer with words in the passage. You have to use common sense to see that in both cases the results described in each passage could be fairly and correctly described as “unreasonable consequences”. - This didn’t happen at all.
Example of argument: Most people say that lying is to say things that aren’t true. But I believe lying is when we say things we don’t feel. This is true because….etc.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions
Leave a Reply