#13 - Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=7465)

The correct answer choice is (C)

You must capture as precisely as possible the author’s attitude toward critics of the Hippocratic
oath. Of course, as with any LSAT question, you should prephrase your answer before reviewing the
answer choices—how would you perceive the author’s perspective on the critics? Usually, to answer
a question such as this one, you can use the following three considerations: Does the author agree or
disagree? Is the author rational or irrational? Is the author’s tone passionate or benign?

Answer choice (A): The author’s attitude was generally negative toward the critics, so you should
eliminate this positive choice.

Answer choice (B): This negative response is a Contender, but you should still eliminate it.
“Bemused” implies a bewildered or puzzled attitude, but the author never intimated that he or
she was puzzled by the position of the critics. Furthermore, the author does not dismiss all of the
criticisms. Even though the author engages in a general defense of the oath, the author concedes that
some peripheral changes are desirable.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author does disagree with the critics,
so it is appropriate to mention “disagreement.” And, the author engages in a reasoned evaluation of
the criticisms, even accepting some criticisms in part, despite the generally negative evaluation of the
critics.

Note that, the typical Reading Comprehension author rarely strays beyond an attitude of
consideration or reason, and thus, even without reading the passage, this was a likely correct answer.
The other possible correct answer—again, without even reading the passage—would be (E). Both
(C) and (E) describe a writing style that you would expect to see in academia, and many of the
passages in LSAT Reading Comprehension are drawn from academic sources. Answer choice (D)
is somewhat less likely because of the “strict” reference (academics are often not strictly neutral;
they tend to take a position and then provide reasonable, well-developed arguments in favor of that
position).

Answer choice (D): The author is clearly negative toward the critics, and not neutral.

Answer choice (E): The author does not agree with the critics, and so this response is opposite of
what is required.

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, So for this Author Attitude must be true question I was down to B and C. I ended up going with B since I thought that the author thought that the critics ideas were unfounded? What in the passage would've led me to get it down to C between B and C and why is B too strong I guess? Thank you so much.

[BethRibet]

Hi JK,

In essence, answer choice B can be eliminated because the word "bemused", which generally means puzzled or confused, isn't supported by anything in the passage. In contrast, the description of the disagreement as "reasoned" (in answer choice C), fits the author's approach, which presents clear, grounded arguments for each point.

Hope this helps!

Beth

[pmuffley]

I absolutely failed this one. For this question specifically, I chose e: guarded agreement.

I thought he was reaching a middle ground with the critics basically saying they could change it a little to make it more applicable, but that the core value should stay.

Is it because the critics wanted to change the core value in the first paragraph? My problem with that though is that he mentions only some critics think it should be changed that drastically. And he does actually agree with the critics to an extent saying that the oath could be changed.

SOOO confused.

Thank you for any help.

[Adam Tyson]

Look to the first paragraph to see the view of the critics, pmuffley:

Critics argue that the oath is outdated; its fixed moral rules, they say, are incompatible with more flexible modern ideas about ethics.

The author disagrees with this sentiment, and argues that while the oath may need some retooling, some version of it needs to say. See this language from the last paragraph for support:

the core value of beneficence—which does not actually conflict with most reformers’ purposes—should be retained, with adaptations at the oath’s periphery by some combination of revision, supplementation, and modern interpretation.

Answer C better captures the gist of the author's opinion that the critics are wrong, that we shouldn't, as the saying goes, throw out the baby with the bathwater. The overall point of the passage is that the critics are wrong, although they have some valid concerns that need to be addressed. Answer E is more like an author saying "well, they are right, but I have some concerns," which is somewhat opposite of what's really happening.