In "The Lady or the Tiger?," the narrator explains the process by which the king decides whether a person is innocent or guilty,
claiming that "its perfect fairness was obvious." Which best explains the use of verbal irony in the narrator's speech? The process is not obvious at all; no one has ever seen it! The process is horribly unfair, as it does not determine real guilt or innocence. The narrator only thinks things are obvious because he is telling the story. The outcome is obvious because the accused always gets either the lady or the tiger.
The irony is what is expected to happen and what actually exists or happens(ed). The ironic part is a guilty man would take the door with the woman behind it and walk away freely while a innocent man would take the tiger and die.
