Q27

[clydemail]

I don't see how a critic could argue B after what was said in passage, because if a public devotion to a way of life is a necessary condition for becoming a professional and a doctor is a professional, then how can there not be a required ethical or public act? And indecently aren't doctors required to take the Hippocratic Oath?

[noah]

In the last paragraph, the author firmly establishes that doctors are engaged in a lofty (moral) profession which involves a public announcement of commitment. We're looking for a critical response to that.

(B) is a reasonable response to this in that it directly address the claims made in that last paragraph. The critics don't necessarily (and probably don't) accept what the author is saying - how else would they be critics? - so it's acceptable for them to say something that contradicts what the author states.

As for the other answers:

(A) does not flow from the last paragraph. It switches to a discussion of how tradespeople learn their skills - this is not in contradiction of the author's point.

(C) is out of scope - personal health?

(D) is too broad and does not represent a critical response to the author's points in the last paragraph. Where are the ethics and public announcements?

(E) meaning of illness? Out of scope.

[clydemail]

Thanks, this really makes sense. If an author has firmly established his point, it would be redundant to argue that any point any further, leaving the author with the sole option of discussing the potential criticism against the argument he has already substantiated.

[jiyoonsim]

Can anyone please rephrase D in easier wording? I was blown away at D, though I somehow managed to get the correct answer.

[noah]

Can anyone please rephrase D in easier wording? I was blown away at D, though I somehow managed to get the correct answer.

I see it as saying this:

The confusions around figuring out what are the important characteristics of the medical profession are actually not the least substantial confusions we're facing these days.

Kind of ridiculous!

[csunnerberg13]

Just have a general clarifying question - on question types like this one where we are supposed to anticipate what could start a next possible paragraph, are we supposed to be looking for the flipside of what the other was just discussing? I.E. if he's defending himself, then we should want the next paragraph to be showing the criticism; if we're hearing the criticism first, then we should be looking out for the defense in the next paragraph?

thanks

[noah]

Just have a general clarifying question - on question types like this one where we are supposed to anticipate what could start a next possible paragraph, are we supposed to be looking for the flipside of what the other was just discussing? I.E. if he's defending himself, then we should want the next paragraph to be showing the criticism; if we're hearing the criticism first, then we should be looking out for the defense in the next paragraph?

thanks

Great question.

No, the answer to this sort of thing is not always a rebuttal. Sometimes the answer will be an extension, or a tie back to something discussed earlier. As usual, wrong-to-right is your best friend here, as the wrong answers will mostly be out of scope.