Q23

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought (C) was very tempting here, even though I picked (D). I eliminated (C) because it didn't seem like the "under attack" part is general enough to warrant this being the MAIN point. I know that the whole "under attack," or perhaps I should say under "criticism," thing started off the passage but I think that was only background information that lends itself to the discussion of what exactly a professional really IS.

How is that reasoning?

I feel like using the background information as the main point might be a good trick the LSAT writers use.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, WaltGrace1983!

While I agree with you that the "attack" on physicians is not the main point of the passage, there are some more concrete things to look to in eliminating this answer choice.

Notice the word "only". That's some seriously strong language for a main idea answer choice - can we support it? With that language (C) indicates not only that we know why physicians are getting attacked, but that there is only one reason: it's "only because" of one thing. But the first seven lines (where the "attack" is discussed) don't ever mention why the "attack" is occurring, much less limit it to a single reason!

Also, notice "widely misunderstood" - can we support that, even remotely? The passage spends a lot of time outlining what physicians do, but there's no indication, anywhere, that people are misunderstanding any of this work.

I personally feel more comfortable when I can eliminate an answer for raising an out of scope, contradicted, or unsupported concept. That way I only have to engage in the 'well, we talked about this, but it's not the MAIN idea' balancing act when it's absolutely necessary.

Rock-solid eliminations are critical to moving efficiently on main point questions, but let's not forget our process: we should be able to answer main point questions from our passage map! Let's take a look at roughly what it should look like:

Paragraph 1: Some people want to cut physicians down to size, change it from a profession to a trade. Why should sensible people resist?
...Possible reason #1 - Etymology.
......Trade = course, pathway, skill, craft.
......Profession = selfconscious, public, speech, profess, confess, etc.
...Not enough of a reason.
Paragraph 2: Possible reason #2 - Learning and knowledge vs know-how
...Not enough of a reason.
Paragraph 3: Possible reason #3 - Prestige and honor.
...Prestige/honor are the result, not the cause.
...Not enough of a reason.
Paragraph 4: Possible reason #4 - Ethical act, way of life, character and heart.
...This is the reason!!

Looking at our passage map, the entire passage is focused on various potential reasons WHY we should think of medicine as a profession - four potential reasons are explored in four paragraphs. It's basically "Why should we think X? Not because of A, B, or C. We should think X because of D!!"

That's exactly what (D) reflects! The correct reason is the one outlined in paragraph 4, after we've dismissed the other potential reasons from prior paragraphs!

For the sake of future readers, let's take a brief look at the other incorrect answers:

(A) The author actually rejected etymology as a sufficient reason in the first paragraph!
(B) The author never indicates we shouldn't honor physicians! Just points out that we honor them because they are a profession, rather than the other way around.
(C) discussed above!
(E) It's other people who are trying to frame physicians as technicians, not the physicians themselves!

As I said, I don't disagree with what you've written, but you'll feel more confident in your eliminations if you 1) keep your eye on the passage map process and 2) zero in on the most offensive language of the answer to eliminate it - "only" and "widely misunderstood" are so much uglier and harder to justify here than "under attack".

What do you think?