Q10

[rmoncel]

On question #10, I came down to A and B, and picked B.

Perhaps the word "chastise" is a bit strong to describe the author's attitude towards the critics of the Hippocratic oath. But I picked it because the second paragraph is clearly an attempt by the author to refute such critics.

Answer A seemed fine but compared to B appeared too narrow in scope as it did not acknowledge the author's attempt to refute critics. (i.e. narrow in scope)

What should I have done differently to have picked A with certainty? Thanks!

[ivankrasnov88]

hi rmoncel, perhaps I have an answer for you as to why you can definitively eliminate answer choice B.

If you notice, another problem with B is the fact that the passage doesn't really affirm that these critics are WITHIN the medical community.

Also, in terms of the main purpose of the passage, it wouldn't necessarily be to 'chastise critics'. If you think about it, the author spends a substantial amount of time (i.e. the whole second paragraph and basically half the passage) defending the oath, not really stating how faulty the critics are. In fact, in his defence (the second par), the author hardly mentions the critics at all. The author even concedes by allowing 'some modification to the periphery' (the external bounds of something).

It seems that B would be a lot more viable of an answer if the second paragraph were devoted to arguing about how damaging, or dangerously wrong the critics are, or what consequences would follow if their viewpoint were adopted.

Hope that helps.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation ivankrasnov88! I completely agree. The author does challenge the critics who suggest we should get rid of the Hippocratic Oath. But there is a difference between "chastising" and "challenging".

Chastising is more of a personal attack, whereas challenging is more about a refutation of the view.

Nice work ivankrasnov88!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's an earlier explanation I wrote in another thread for this question:

10. The author's primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) is the correct answer. The passage advocates to maintain the Hippocratic Oath, but update it a bit.
(B) is way off course. There is no attempt to "chastise critics."
(C) is not accurate. The passage does not dismiss the criticisms, but rather suggests to modify the oath in light of those criticisms.
(D) there is no outline of the pros and cons of the Hippocratic Oath, but rather a discussion of some of the criticisms some have leveled against it.
(E) is very close, but implies that the author actually lays out a revision of the Hippocratic Oath. Instead, the author advocates that it be revised, but doesn't lay out a particular revision.

[goriano]

E) is very close, but implies that the author actually lays out a revision of the Hippocratic Oath. Instead, the author advocates that it be revised, but doesn't lay out a particular revision.

I'm still not sure how to eliminate (E) with certainty. Brackets are where I found supporting evidence from the passage + line references.

Propose a revision of a code [adaptations @ the periphery, L50] embodying certain principles [some combination of revision, supplementation, and modern interpretation, L51] that will increase the code's applicability to modern times.

Help!!

[jabushawish4]

it seems the authors says there should be some revision and adaptation but never explicitly proposes a specific revision. I incorrectly chose this answer too.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly right jabushawish4! The author never actually proposes a specific revision of the Hippocratic Oath. The author does propose that revisions should be made, but does not actually "propose a revision."

[goriano]

Exactly right jabushawish4! The author never actually proposes a specific revision of the Hippocratic Oath. The author does propose that revisions should be made, but does not actually "propose a revision."

Wow, it took me a while to see that "propose a revision" doesn't equal "propose that a revision should be made"

It seems that the questions I do get wrong have been this type in nature where I'm not picking up the subtlety of the wording until someone on the forum brings it up. Do you have any advice for this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It seems like you have the right strategy as you were having difficulty eliminating answer choice (E). Hopefully that means you were down to (A) and (E). At that point, identify a difference between the two answers that you can verify in the passage. In this case I would be asking myself, does this passage "affirm society's continuing need for a code?" or does it "propose a revision of a code?"

In the last paragraph, one line stands out as the author's thesis. "To fulfill that need, the core value of beneficence... should be retained, with adaptations at the oath's periphery by some combination of revision, supplementation, and modern interpretation." (lines 47-52)

Stay inside those words and ask yourself which of those answer choices is being expressed.

Hope that helps!

[SarahA11]

I'm confused as to how you knew to eliminate C. The answer choice states "argue that historical doubts about the origin of a certain code are irrelevant to its interpretation". I thought that the sentence in the passage "This historical issue may be dismissed at the outset as irrelevant to the oath's current appropriateness", with the "historical issue" being defined by lines 28-30, was more than indicative of that answer choice. The only thing I can think of as for why C is incorrect is that it is perhaps too narrow to fully describe the main purpose of the passage?