Q14

[weiwu0221]

Why is answer choice (C) wrong?
Personally, I think it is a narrow scope one, because it doesn't address the main point, though the author did mention it in the passage.
Is my understanding correct?
Thank you.

[noah]

I agree with your analysis. I'll go through it for anyone who's confused.

We're looking for an answer that encompasses the scale:

H.oath is usable with a bit of changing vs. H.Oath needs to be scrapped and replaced

(A) is tempting since there's a discussion of changing ideas, but the passage suggests that the essential ethics have remained the same. Contradicted/unsupported.

(B) is out of scope - there's no discussion of managed care proponents.

(C) is too narrow - the reference to the origins of the oath is just a small part of the passage. Definitely not the main idea.

(D) suggests that the author stands against the oath - which is contradicted.

(E) is correct - it expresses the subtle tension between opinions about what to do with the oath.

[shirando21]

but what did critics say about what to do with the oath? did they say it needs big changes like major surgery? Can you provide line reference. Thanks.

[noah]

but what did critics say about what to do with the oath? did they say it needs big changes like major surgery? Can you provide line reference. Thanks.

Lines 47-52 sum up the author's point that a face lift is the way to go.

The first paragraph notes that critics feel the oath is outdated (lines 13-15). In lines 17-28 we hear the critics points about omissions and faults, which can be taken to mean they would suggest "major surgery."

[jaf51200]

Maybe I overlooked answer choice E, but it seems to indicate at best that the author is contemplating both routes to take and at worst unsure which route to take. I understand that E illustrates both sides of the scale quite nicely, but the OR and the question mark at the end made me think that the authors viewpoint was misrepresented because he falls squarely on the revision side. Since this is an editorial, why would the author title it so neutrally like that?

[ohthatpatrick]

I see your concern.

I think you can slightly alter how you're judging the "best title" entries. You seem to be looking at it as though we're picking the answer choice that PRESENTS the main point.

But the title of the passage can be presented more like a PRIMARY CONCERN question ("which of the following is the author's primary concern is writing this passage").

(E) is saying, "THIS is the question we will be answering in the passage".

It doesn't PROVIDE the author's actual answer. The author is definitely not split down the middle here, but this title would fairly capture the underlying debate of the passage. We'll hear from people who think the oath needs major surgery, and then we'll hear the author sell us on mere facelift.

Editorial pieces aren't necessarily like regular newspaper articles; they don't try to GIVE you the bottom line in the headline and then flesh out the details in the article. Editorials are more likely to pose a question or present a controversial topic in the title and only reveal the writer's position if you actually read the piece.

The title certainly COULD have revealed the author's position, but that's not a requirement of a title. We just want to make sure the title focuses on the central issue being discussed.

Hope this helps.