Q28

[KakaJaja]

Can anyone explain why A is incorrect? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I would say that (A) is incorrect because the author doesn't locate the "something else" until AFTER line 42.

Within 18-42, the author raises three different interpretations about 'profession' and then raises his own objection to each one.

i. publicly professing devotion
BUT "public announcement seems insufficient"

ii. learning and knowledge
YET "it is not only the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge"

iii. the prestige and honor accorded professionals
BUT "externalities do not constitute medicine a profession"

So if (A) said that lines 18-42 "DEMONSTRATE THE NEED for 'something else' as a means of explaining 'profession'", then it could fit.

But those lines don't LOCATE the something else. That comes next in the passage.

Hope this helps.

[cyt5015]

I thought the ultimate purpose of author is to locate the true meaning "something else" of the profession by criticizing three wrong definitions. I treat the criticisms as an approach to reveal the true meaning. Is my thought problematic? I still have difficulty to confidently eliminate answer A. Can someone please help me?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're right, that the "ultimate purpose" of the author is to get at the essential aspect of the word 'profession' that matters to him.

But the scope of the question is not "what is the ultimate purpose of the passage". Rather, it is what is the author's purpose in (i.e. during) lines 18-42.

If the question stem said "which is the purpose OF lines 18-42", then maybe you could try to relate that whole chunk of the passage to the entire passage, but the question stem says "which is the purpose IN lines 18-42".

Even though we are still keeping in mind the overall purpose of the passage, the question stem is DEFINITELY limiting us to a certain window, so we should answer according to that window.

As you said, the author is shooting down definitions "as an approach to reveal the true meaning".

Is that a paraphrase of what (A) says?

No it says that, in that window of text, the author LOCATES "something else".

That's just inaccurate. The locating doesn't happen within those lines. That's why I was saying before that if (A) were worded in a more future looking way, like "the author eliminates alternative definitions in order to pinpoint the correct one", it would be fine. But this choice is phrased in such a way that it means "the author LOCATES the 'something else' IN lines 18-42".

Hope this helps.

[cyt5015]

Woo, I didn't think of that "in" and "of" make such big difference. Thank you for clarifying that!
Actually, I have another concern that if answer B is just a summary of those lines. I have difficulties to distinguish summary and purpose. Moreover, I am easily trapped by a general answer (like answer A) to a purpose question. Shall I remind myself to choose a more specific answer instead of a general one for this type of question? My tutor said for local purpose questions, the specific answer (assuming factually accurate) is safer than a general one if I am debating between the two, because the general one covers the detailed one and you cannot have two correct answers at the same time.
Could you help me with the above puzzle?
Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

That sounds like good advice. Ultimately, we have to be flexible because some correct answer choices are definitely exceptions to the general tendency.

But I agree that local purpose questions are normally contained in the local vicinity. You can go forward or backwards a sentence or two from where they're pointing you to determine the purpose of whatever chunk they're testing, but in general you shouldn't be grabbing ideas from other paragraphs.

And it's certainly true of any Inference-type question that if one answer choice encompasses another, the weaker, more restrictive one would have to be correct (but that rule of thumb would go out the window on Main Point or other big picture questions, since a wrong answer could be "True, but too narrow").

Ultimately, I think I hesitate to concoct any sort of rule based off this problem for a couple reasons:

- It's Test 1, so it's not necessarily as good a representation of modern LSAT

- This is probably the weirdest chunk of text I've ever seen them rope off ... 24 lines that start in P1 and end in P3? Whaaa?

So I don't feel good talking about "this type of question" because honestly I'm not sure that this IS a type of question worth talking about.

I was confused what you were asking about (B). Did you mean (C), the correct answer?

Again, we don't need to think that (A) is wrong because of nailing the right narrowness/broadness of scope. (A) is just inaccurate, because the author does not locate the 'something else' in those lines. If (A) said "to lay the groundwork for locating the 'something else'", then I don't know how we would choose (A) vs. (C).

[WaltGrace1983]

Are (D) and (E) wrong simply because they are too narrow and do not encompass 18-42 in its entirety?

What is wrong with (B)?

[jwms]

Are (D) and (E) wrong simply because they are too narrow and do not encompass 18-42 in its entirety?

What is wrong with (B)?

In (B), the author does not dismiss efforts to redefine the meaning of 'profession'. The author gets at the etymology (and doesn't dismiss redefinitions), but that's only the first half of the lines, so (B) can't possibly represent the main point of 18-42.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Are (D) and (E) wrong simply because they are too narrow and do not encompass 18-42 in its entirety?

What is wrong with (B)?

Heya WaltGrace1983, thanks for posting!

As I mentioned in the other post on this same passage, I feel a million times more confident when I'm eliminating RC answers for being unsupported, contradicted, or out of scope. I only want to engage in the balancing act of "weeeeeeell, that's an accurate answer, but it's too narrow" if I absolutely have to. The reality is that the vast majority of the time there IS something definitively unsupported, contradicted, or out of scope!

jwms is right about (B) - the author isn't dismissing efforts to redefine "profession"! In fact, no one is trying to "redefine" profession at all! The author is burning through several potential definitions, but none of them are efforts to REdefine the term.

As a slightly more nuanced point, the author doesn't actually dismiss all of these definitions outright - he never says the first two definitions are WRONG. The etymology and education issues seem like valid aspects of what it is to be a profession, they just aren't sufficient to define it on their own. The author says that they aren't the REASON we should call medicine a profession. But that's not the same thing as dismissing a definition as being wrong as a definition.

As for (D), the author doesn't really "advocate a return" to the etymology. He says only that we "can gain some illumination" from the etymology. He's examining it as one definition that could potentially answer the question "why should we think of medicine as a profession" - and he ultimately decides that the etymology doesn't answer the question.

(E) is wrong for largely the same reason that (A) is - the author does not successfully distinguish the trades from the professions (including medicine) until after line 42.

In short, all four wrong answers include something the author does not do in the referenced lines:

(A) The author doesn't "locate the meaning" until after line 42.
(B) The author doesn't dismiss any "efforts to REdefine" the term "profession."
(D) The author doesn't advocate a return to the linguistic roots.
(E) The author doesn't successfully "distinguish" the trades from the professions until after line 42.

What do you think?

[ForumT72]

Wow Thanks for the questions!