June 1991 - PT 1 - RC (Section 1) #24 Professions; HW 2-108

[angie23]

Why is C (the author's inquiry into the nature of the practice of medicine) the correct answer instead of E (the author's fascination w/ the origins of words)? It doesn't make sense to me since the first paragraph is mostly about the etymology of "profession".

[Ron Gore]

Thanks for your question, Angie, and welcome to the Forum!

While it is true that the passage author spent a long time on the etymology of the word "profession," we have to look beyond the remainder of the first paragraph to answer Question 24. Instead, we need to look at the function played by the author's rhetorical question.

To think about the function played by that question, think about what the author is trying to get across. The ultimate distinction the author draws is between that of a profession and a trade, or occupation. The author uses the etymology of the word "profession" to set up that conversation. So, while the a discussion of the origin of the word "profession" immediately follows the rhetorical question, the author use the question to introduce a larger idea.

Also, consider this. To pick answer choice (E), you are saying that we know something extrinsic to the passage. That we know the author has a fascination with the origins of words. While that may be true, it is not necessarily the case. All we know for sure from the passage is that the author discusses the origin of the word in order to "gain some illumination" (10-11) on the larger question at issue.

Please let me know if this helps. And, again, welcome.

Ron

[angie23]

But why is C the correct answer? I feel that even if I look at the larger picture of the passage (which is what factors constitute “profession”), none of the answer choices seem correct. Thank you for the warm welcome by the way

[Ron Gore]

Hi Angie,

I fixed the typo in my first post, which had (C), instead of (E), in the last main paragraph. I'm not sure if that clears up the issue for you.

From your response, though, it appears you feel the word "fascination" is supported by the passage to describe the author's relationship to the origin of words. But there is nothing in the passage to support that the author is actually "fascinated" with the origin of words. That's a very strong word. It implies more than just a professional or academic interest. It implies a very powerful, ardent interest.

As I mentioned in my original text, the author explicitly turns to etymology as a tool to convey the broader message of the passage, not to indulge some fascination with etymology that is distinct from the usefulness of etymology to support an argument. Even at that level, because there is nothing to show the author's fascination with etymology itself, answer choice (E) is incorrect.

But it's also more than that. The entire rest of the passage answers the question described in this question stem. While the etymological discussion is closest in line number to the question, the question does not appear designed to merely give the author a chance to talk about the origin of words.

Think about it this way. When you learned to drive a car, you were "introduced" to the car. You learned the different gears, displays, terms, etc. But you likely didn't learn all of those things because of a fascination with cars. If you're like most people, you learned about the car because it was a tool for use in getting you to other places.

For this author, the information about the origin of the relevant terms was a tool that would then permit the author to explore other ideas. Just because the author followed up the question with a discussion of the terms does not mean the discussion of terms was an end unto itself. Instead, that information provided the foundation for the reader to understand the broader point.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it states without support that the author has a "fascination" with words, and because it puts the emphasis on the foundation information rather than the author's broader point. Answer choice (C) is correct, because it properly puts the focus on the author's larger discussion regarding the nature of medicine, which by the end of the passage provides the author's answer to the question raised by the passage in lines 7-10.

Hope this helps.

Ron