Professor Lee Choonghyung: "Answer Choice 3 Is Not Valid, According to the Institute"
"Complex Concepts... The Passage Is Not Suitable for High School Students"
Experts have raised concerns over Question 17 in the Korean language section of the 2026 College Scholastic Ability Test, arguing that "there is no correct answer." The controversy is spreading as both philosophy professors and well-known instructors join the debate.
Examinees preparing for exams at the testing site set up at Gyeongbok High School in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News
According to the education sector on November 19, Lee Choonghyung, a professor of philosophy at Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), posted on an online community for examinees, stating, "Since I heard that a question related to Kant appeared on the Korean language section of the CSAT, I tried solving Question 17 myself and found that there seemed to be no answer."
Question 17, considered one of the most difficult questions on this year's CSAT, features a passage about the concept of "personal identity" by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The question presents the argument of "Person A," who claims that if consciousness occurring in the brain is scanned and reproduced as a program, the original self and the reproduced consciousness are not the same person. Examinees are then asked to select the most appropriate response that demonstrates an understanding of this argument.
The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation designated option 3 as the correct answer: "According to the view that was influential before Kant, Person A's position that the mere continuation of the 'thinking self' does not guarantee personal identity would not be correct."
However, Professor Lee countered that option 3 cannot be the correct answer because Person A's argument is valid. He explained that the "pre-Kantian view" mentioned in the passage assumes that the soul persists as a "single subject" over time. If consciousness is reproduced as a program, the condition of a "single subject" is not met, so Person A's claim that "personal identity is not guaranteed" is actually reasonable.
Professor Lee further pointed out, "Although it seems like a question that can be solved using the logic 'if a = b and a is C, then b is also C,' this is actually an incorrect approach." He added, "Person A only mentions the concept of the 'thinking self' and does not refer to the soul, so a logical connection between the 'thinking self' and the 'soul' is necessary." He emphasized that "no such connection is presented anywhere in the passage or the answer choices."
In a phone interview with Yonhap News, Professor Lee said, "It seems the test maker underestimated the complexity of the argument 'if a = b and a is C, then b is also C.'" He stressed, "This situation involves extremely complex concepts, so such a simple argument cannot be applied." He also noted, "The concept itself is not at a level that high school students can understand. It took me 20 minutes just to comprehend the passage."
Professor Lee was previously selected as one of the "Top 10 Philosophy Papers of 2022" for his paper on the status of zygotes and early embryos, which used the concept of "numerical identity"-a concept related to Question 17.
Lee Haehwang, known as a reading comprehension and logic instructor, also contributed to the controversy by posting a video on YouTube expressing the same viewpoint. He stated, "After receiving Professor Lee's email and reviewing the question, I reached the same conclusion."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
