Yes, the author address "authoritarianism", "fail to address modern medical dilemma" "incompatible with narket-driven medical industry", as criticism for H oath, together with outdated moral rules. Hence, the "purpose" for periphery revision actually is unclear here.
However, would it be more correct if answer B says "some part" rather than "some version" ought to be retained? As versions means "an account or interpretation especially as contrasted with another account". But the article does not address "contrast account", instead it addresses "seperate parts", as it's core value and peripheries.
rucinski.dust Wrote:I also don't understand why A is wrong. Lines 49-51 state "should be retained, with adaptations at the oath's periphery by some combination of revision, supplementation, and modern interpretation."
How does this not equate to A which says "should be reevaluated carefully"? Is it because A ends with "to make certain fundamental moral rules still apply today?"
Thanks