LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q13
The author's main point is tricky to find in this passage. We need to sense it coming from the typical context clues of hearing "some critics believe ____", and thus expecting that lurking just beyond that point of view will be the author's potential disagreement with it.
The 1st paragraph gives us a little background on the Hippocratic Oath before giving us one side of the central argument in line 13 ("Critics argue ___"). The rest of that paragraph continues with other people's points of view. Line 21-22 "some critics believe". Line 27 "Some respected opponents".
When that 1st paragraph is done, we should pause and reflect on what we heard and where we anticipate the passage is going next.
Okay. A bunch of critics have gripes with the Hippocratic Oath. What's the next paragraph probably going to discuss? Probably either the supporters of the Oath or the author's evaluation of the criticisms mentioned.
Indeed, as the 2nd paragraph begins, we see the author is taking those aforementioned criticisms head-on, one at a time.
Line 34 says the "historical issue may be dismissed at the outset as irrelevant". (Reasoned disagreement)
Line 41 says that "even the more substantive, morally based arguments ... cannot negate the patients' need for assurance that blah-blah-blah". (Reasoned disagreement)
This passage as a whole can be thought of as:
1st paragraph - a bunch of people have gripes with the Oath and want to either get rid of it or drastically alter it
2nd paragraph - the author wants to retain the fundamental core of the Oath, though she's tolerant of tweaking some minor things "at the oath's periphery".
I tend to think of a passage like this as a "Defend Against Criticism" passage. And again, seeing the critics' point of view enumerated in the first paragraph foreshadows for me that it will probably be a "Defend Against Criticism" passage, so I'm keenly on the lookout for any sense of the author countering the critics.
Hope this helps.
--- other answers ----
A) opposite
B) "bemused" means 'befuddled'/'confused', and we can't support that anywhere
C) correct
D) it's not neutral. The author, in the 2nd paragraph, counters some of what the critics have said in the 1st paragraph.
E) Tempting. Even though the author makes some concessions to the critics, we still want to appreciate that her main purpose in writing this passage was to push back against the oath's critics, so picking 'agreement' over 'disagreement' in (C) just doesn't make sense overall.
The 1st paragraph gives us a little background on the Hippocratic Oath before giving us one side of the central argument in line 13 ("Critics argue ___"). The rest of that paragraph continues with other people's points of view. Line 21-22 "some critics believe". Line 27 "Some respected opponents".
When that 1st paragraph is done, we should pause and reflect on what we heard and where we anticipate the passage is going next.
Okay. A bunch of critics have gripes with the Hippocratic Oath. What's the next paragraph probably going to discuss? Probably either the supporters of the Oath or the author's evaluation of the criticisms mentioned.
Indeed, as the 2nd paragraph begins, we see the author is taking those aforementioned criticisms head-on, one at a time.
Line 34 says the "historical issue may be dismissed at the outset as irrelevant". (Reasoned disagreement)
Line 41 says that "even the more substantive, morally based arguments ... cannot negate the patients' need for assurance that blah-blah-blah". (Reasoned disagreement)
This passage as a whole can be thought of as:
1st paragraph - a bunch of people have gripes with the Oath and want to either get rid of it or drastically alter it
2nd paragraph - the author wants to retain the fundamental core of the Oath, though she's tolerant of tweaking some minor things "at the oath's periphery".
I tend to think of a passage like this as a "Defend Against Criticism" passage. And again, seeing the critics' point of view enumerated in the first paragraph foreshadows for me that it will probably be a "Defend Against Criticism" passage, so I'm keenly on the lookout for any sense of the author countering the critics.
Hope this helps.
--- other answers ----
A) opposite
B) "bemused" means 'befuddled'/'confused', and we can't support that anywhere
C) correct
D) it's not neutral. The author, in the 2nd paragraph, counters some of what the critics have said in the 1st paragraph.
E) Tempting. Even though the author makes some concessions to the critics, we still want to appreciate that her main purpose in writing this passage was to push back against the oath's critics, so picking 'agreement' over 'disagreement' in (C) just doesn't make sense overall.
2 posts Page 1 of 1