Anticipation of "what comes after passage question"

[ericha3535]

I am going to use two passages as examples, which are:
June 1991, passage 4: Q27
Dec 1991, Passage 3: Q 20

Both questions involve anticipating what comes after the passage.

Generally speaking, my approach to this kind of question was: choose an answer choice that best summarize the overall points.
For example, if you look at Dec 1991, Passage 3: Q 20, this fits right into my strategy. The passage indeed talked about how having monopoly power could lead to bad things... but at the same time, itself isn't a bad thing if it leads to distribute goods at competitive price. Nothing new here, nothing out of blue.

Now, June 1991, passage 4: Q27 is a whole different ball game.
Yes, the author was very firm about how medical professionals should consider themselves as these people who profess their ethical devotion to the society and whatnot.
Then, boom, B is the answer for this question about these critics. That was the first answer choice I eliminated. Yes, the critics, as the name speaks for itself, would oppose to what the author has claimed. But who knows what critics would say? Also, who cares about what would they say?
B is certainly the best answer choice out of all, and yes one could get this by "eliminating others." But... this certainly does not fit into my strategy.

I have this urge to modify my approach to this "anticipation" question.

Thus...

What is the best approach to this type of questions?
I need your help!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Ericha 3535,

Thanks for your post. These questions are HARD. They require getting into the mind of the LSAT writer who is, in turn, getting into the mind of the passage writer. So basically you need to become a really sophisticated mindreader...

In terms of the specific examples you cite:

Note that they ask slightly different questions. The question from the monopoly passage asks you to add a line to the end to "complete" the passage. The question from the medical professions passage asks you to "begin" a new paragraph.

A concluding sentence neatly ties up the central argument. Hence your process of "summarize the overall points" worked on the monopoly passage.

A new paragraph, on the other hand, continues the passage’s central debate.
Think about what the LSAT writer is looking for here. S/he is looking to see that you know what the author is most concerned about. That you know what point the author would want to expand upon.

Your process ("choose an answer choice that best summarize the overall points") is still basically correct. However, I’d rephrase your task slightly: choose an answer choice that best captures the author’s central argument/ task.

In the medical professions passage, the author begins by describing the critics who want to take doctors down a peg. She spends the rest of the passage rebutting said critics.

So, her central argument/ task is arguing against the critics.

Answer choice (B) reflects that task. It shows her continuing to tussle with the critics. She imagines a rejoinder they might lob at her, which presumably she would argue agains in the rest of the new paragraph.

Do you see the subtle distinction between the questions? Also, do you see why, in either case, you’re still trying to get at the heart of the author’s heart?

[ericha3535]

Thanks for the reply...
However, I still have a lingering question.
I do not see this passage as an author who tries to defend his argument from the critics.
Rather, I see the central task of the author as "describing this conventional belief/information that everyone is aware of, and tries to debunk it with his opinion."

More specifically, "Author says the society believes that doctors are professional due to this reason (prestige, having more knowledge...). Then he says NOPE, that's not it... professing this ethical standards to society in providing his service is what makes a doctor professional..."

Perhaps this isn't the way to see this passage... if I am wrong, could you help me see how this passage is trying to fight off critics?

Furthermore, under assumption that I am correct, I wouldn't be able to see or pick B LOGICALLY.
The reason why I capitalized the word is because...
I could see why B is correct. But this is probably having B resembles the typical structure of an LSAT passage:
Author says this traditional stuff, then brings new stuff, then bring some opposing view, then concede that opposing view has some merit yet his view is still better.
With this "pattern," that I've seen over the course of studying LSAT, yes I could see why B is right...
But other than that... I cannot see how B is right.

But other points you made were great.
I could see how two questions are similar yet fundamentally different which requires different types of mindset and approach to those questions.

Thanks but a little bit more help would be greatly appreciated!

[rinagoldfield]

Hey Ericha,

I follow what you’re saying, but I see the passage differently!

I do agree that the author isn’t trying to defend her argument against critics. But I think this for different reasons than you: I see the author in an offensive rather than a defensive position. I still think her main foes are "critics" rather than "conventional beliefs."

The author identifies her (intellectual) enemies in the very first lines of the passage: "Outside of the medical profession, there are various efforts to cut medicine down to size: ... attempts by consumer groups and others to redefine medicine as a trade rather than a profession, and the physician as merely a technician for hire" (lines 1-6).

These "consumer groups" and "others" are the "critics" of medicine as a profession.

Following these lines, the author asks the question that sets the stage for the rest of the passage:

"Why should physicians (or indeed all sensible people) resist such efforts to give the practice of medicine a new meaning?" (lines 7-10).

This question launches the author into the rest of her argument: blah blah blah, doctors are professionals, contrary to what the critics think.

This question also implies a thesis statement: we, as reasonable people, should resist the critics’ efforts to redefine medicine as something other than a profession.

The part you refer to, Ericha, in which the author disagrees with a conventional take on professionalism, falls under the umbrella of the BIGGER question of whether or not medicine is a profession at all.

So while the passage’s scale is heavily weighted in the author’s favor (she doesn’t give the critics too much air time), she is, indeed, arguing against critics.

In that sense, (B) is both supported and logical, in my view.

What say you?

[ericha3535]

Thanks, rinagoldfield!
I think I got the gist of it...
After repeatedly reading the passage, I realize that the author is trying to accomplish two tasks at the same time:
1) the critics (from line 1 - 6) should concede that being a doctor is a professional job.
2) Redefining the definition of medical profession to accurately describe what a medical profession is and implicitly supports the point 1) with this definition.

I believe pt 2) was the "bigger" picture whereas point 1) was rather implied. Thus, I only focused on pt 2), missing the Q27.

BTW, just wondering, is this kind of structure common, where the author is trying to convey two ideas with one main support?

This is an eye-opening moment for me!
Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Ericha3535,

Thanks for your reply. This is a hard passage since the author takes on lots of issues simultaneously. There's sort of a scale-within-a-scale. WHY medicine is a profession is one scale (author v. convention). That scale fits into the other scale of WHETHER medicine is a professions (author v. critics).

I don't the form is very common... but nice work muddling through.

--Rina