PrepTest 118

[lcid:3569] Prep Test 118 LSAT — Reading Comp — S2 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 7-14  .        The moral precepts embodied in the Hippocratic  . oath, which physicians standardly affirm upon  . beginning Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Social Science


Paragraph 1.1 (Lines 1-12)

  • Paragraph note
    • Background
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Hippocratic Oath - Defines medical morality, has seemed impervious to criticism

Paragraph 1.2 (Lines 13-33)

  • Paragraph note
    • Critics against Hippocratic Oath
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • List of criticisms:
      • 1) Outdated
      • 2) Authoritarian doctors, hurt autonomy and privacy of patient
      • 3) Only individual patient, not overall healthcare system
      • 4) Misses some stuff (human testing, relationship to other healthcare pros)
      • 5) Historical - Might not be by Hippocrates; might not have been accepted

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on argument of Critics; Author recommends keeping Oath in some form
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • On Issue #5 - Dismiss it - History doesn’t matter as to whether it’s good
    • On other issues, patients need to know doctors are acting in their interest
    • Author - Hippocratic Oath should retain core value of beneficence, with revision/supplementation/interpretation at peripher
    • Example - “Cutting for stone” updated to allow surgery now that it’s safer

Main Point: Despite recent criticisms against the Hippocratic Oath, its core value of beneficence should be retained, with some revisions, supplementation, and modern interpretation on its periphery.

Key Lines?

Line 13 - A list of criticisms is started (each element is important)

Lines 34-36 - The Author responds to one criticism

Lines 47-52 - The Author’s opinion on what “should” be done with the Hippocratic Oath (main point)

Meta-Structure?

Defense from Critics - This passage falls into a common Meta-Structure, where the Author presents the arguments of Critics against a certain idea and then defends that idea against the Critics. While it’s more common in a Humanities passage that presents criticism of an artist or movement, it can show up concerning other topics, as we see here. The Author spends most of Paragraph 1 bringing up a number of criticisms (5 by our count) of the Hippocratic Oath before spending Paragraph 2 defending the Oath from that criticism. When a passage falls into this Meta-Structure, the main point is either the Author’s central disagreement with the Critics or the Author’s opinion on the central topic, if she states one. Here, she does state an opinion on the Hippocratic Oath - that the “core value of beneficence...should be retained,” with some adaptations at its periphery (Lines 47-52) - so that view should make up the main point, as we stated it above.

List - The Author lists a series of criticisms leveled against the Hippocratic Oath in Paragraph 1, and that takes up a lot of space in the passage. As such, and since it serves as both a separate viewpoint and a central part of the Defense from Critics Meta-Structure, we should expect some questions about this list.

Example - A limited example is raised at the end of the passage to show the type of “update” that the Author believes should be done on the Hippocratic Oath to modernize it.

Last Thoughts?

Two last thoughts.

First, we split up Paragraph 1 into two parts so that we could more easily digest each section. Lines 1-12 don’t have much content that we expect questions to show up from as it’s just background, but the second half of Paragraph 1 features a list of criticisms leveled against the central topic, and so we want to be sure that we’re digesting that as a unified whole.

Second, this passage has a very clear statement of the Author’s main point - it’s an opinion on what “should” be done about the main topic (Lines 47-52). When you have such a clear statement of the Author’s view, you definitely want to focus on it as you work through the questions.

Question prompt

The author's primary purpose Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Humanities

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and any overarching Meta-Structures, then find an answer that best reflects them

Answer Anticipation

When reading through the passage, we said that the passage fell into a common Meta-Structure - Defense from Critics.The Author spends Paragraph 1 mainly laying out the argument of Critics who believe the Hippocratic Oath is outdated. From there, she pivots to dismissing some of their arguments (the historical ones, Lines 34-41) and stating that there are substantive moral arguments to keep it - or, at least, a certain version of it, with its core value retained and some edits at the periphery (Lines 47-52).So let’s find an answer reflecting the Author’s purpose here - defending the Hippocratic Oath from attacks by Critics and argue that some version of it should be retained.

Answer choices

  1. A
    affirm society's continuing need Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) (Lines 47-52) We wouldn’t pick this answer until after eliminating the other four since it doesn’t mention the critics. However, in stating that the Author argues for the continued need for a code embodying certain principles - the Hippocratic Oath, beneficence on the part of doctors - this answer does capture her main point. And in using the verb “affirm,” this answer does capture that her argument might be in response to arguments against that continuing need. So, it’s ultimately correct.

  2. B
    chastise critics within the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) (Lines 50-52) The Critics call the Oath outdated, while the Author calls for adaptations to the code at its periphery. So, if anything, the Critics are calling for it to be thrown out, while the Author is the one calling for reinterpretation of some aspects of it, making this answer wrong.

  3. C
    argue that historical doubts Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) (Lines 34-41; Line 41) The Author does argue that historical doubts are irrelevant to its current appropriateness, but that isn’t the same as being irrelevant to its interpretation. On top of that, the Author follows up this claim by pivoting to something that she believes is “[m]ore important[],” so the primary purpose can’t be to make this point.

  4. D
    outline the pros and Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) The Author dismisses the view of the Critics who think the code should be abandoned and instead argues that it should be retained with some adaptations at the periphery. She doesn’t go into the cons of revising the code - she just argues that there are reasons it should be kept with portions adapted - so this answer is incorrect.

  5. E
    propose a revision of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) (Lines 47-52) This is such a tempting trap answer. After all, the Author’s main point is that the Hippocratic Oath, with its core value, should be retained, with adaptations at the Oath’s periphery. However, there are two issues with this answer. First, the Author doesn’t actually propose a revision - she just says that the Oath could stand to have some adaptations. Calling that a “revision” is like saying someone who says, “We really should make some changes to fix our budget problem,” has proposed a revision/plan. Second, those adaptations are secondary to the Author’s argument that the Oath should be retained with its core value intact, and this answer fails to reflect her argument about what should be kept.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion