What is one question and answer (not a summary) that is revealed in the chapters three and four?

It appears that the most important question in chapters 3 and 4 is as follows: "Are lies always morally objectionable, or are they permissible on the right occasion?"
The answer, according to the author, will depend upon who makes the choice and the procedures to arrive at such a choice. Depending upon our beliefs, we may choose to agree or disagree with the author, who rejects absolutist views about lying. He argues that some lies, when told to protect the innocent, are not to be classed with those that have malicious intent.
The author discusses both utilitarian and absolutist views about lying. He concludes that there is no homogeneity of opinion in both camps. Even among the absolutists who maintain that all lies occasion divine punishment, consensus is lacking when it relates to endangerment of life. The author contrasts Wesley, Augustine, and Kant's "single-minded upholding of truthfulness" with the utilitarian position of common-sense morality. To the utilitarian, a lie is permissible so long as it results in more happiness than unhappiness. In other words, a lie is permissible if it results in positive consequences.
However, the author maintains that utilitarians can only defend this stance on an individual basis. He argues that it is indefensible when the principle of utilitarianism must account for complex situations that involve a large group of people. Furthermore, the author rejects the tendency to render moral equivalence to a lie and falsehood that achieve the same utility. He maintains that, since most lies result in negative consequences and the loss of personal integrity, such a generalization is dangerous.
The question remains: are lies always morally objectionable, or are they permissible on the right occasion? The answer should rest on a case-by-case basis. Because of the complexities of human nature and of life itself, the author insists that both absolutists and utilitarians account for uncertainties that surround the moral alternatives.