#24 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[KelseyWoods]

Complete Question Explanation

Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function. The correct answer is (C).

This question refers us to specific lines of the passage, so first we need to go back to lines 7-10: "Why should physicians (or indeed all sensible people) resist such efforts to give the practice of medicine a new meaning?" In these lines, the author poses a question. Questions posed by the author usually introduce the author's answer to that question. Here, the author asks why we should resist redefining the practice of medicine as a trade rather than a profession and then spends the rest of the passage discussing the answer to that question. So this question basically introduces the main focus of the entire passage.

Answer choice (A): The author does not believe that it is "futile" (or useless) to resist the trend toward defining the physician's work as a trade. The author does not ask the question to suggest that there is no point to resisting those efforts. The author spends the rest of the passage discussing why medicine should be regarded as a profession rather than a trade.

Answer choice (B): The lines do not introduce the author's dislike of governmental regulation and consumer advocacy. Furthermore, though the author refers to massive governmental regulation and consumer groups in the lines before the question, we do not have enough evidence to prove that the author actually dislikes governmental regulation and consumer advocacy in general.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer. Lines 7-10 introduce the author's discussion about the practice of medicine and why the nature of that practice indicates that it should be thought of as a profession rather than a trade.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is too specific. Throughout the passage, the author argues for why medicine should be considered a profession. But the author is not promoting these arguments as suggestions specifically for rallying sensible people to a concentrated defense of physicians. The author thinks that sensible people will agree with him, but doesn't say "here are the arguments you should use to get sensible people to start launch a concerted defense of physicians." It's also not necessarily about "defending" physicians as much as it is about how we think of the practice of medicine.

Answer choice (E): The author talks about the etymology of specific words that are relevant to his discussion of the nature of the practice of medicine. He is not introducing a general fascination with the origins of words.

[yrivers]

Could you explain why A and E are incorrect according to the passage? And why C is correct? Thank you!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi yrivers,

Thanks for the question! Generally, our responses will be most helpful to you if you fill us in on how you approached the question, which answer you chose, and why you thought it was correct. Can you walk us through your reasoning here so we can tailor an explanation to your thinking about this question?

[tanushreebansal]

I have the same question as yrivers. I chose E because the question specifically asks what the line "introduces" and if you look in the passage, the sentences directly following the stated lines 8-10 discuss etymology. That is why I thought E was correct.

I thought C was incorrect because the sentence following lines 8-10 talks about the word "Trade" and not about the medical profession. So how can lines 8-10 be introducing an inquiry into the nature of the practice of medicine?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, tanushreebansal. It seems that what we are having trouble with is the idea of "introducing". Your interpretation, which is not unreasonable, is that it means "coming immediately before." In other words, you are acting as if one thing introducing another means they must be adjacent, and the thing introduced must be the very next thing mentioned.

I think that is too strict an interpretation. Consider an introduction to a person, which might go something like this: "Let me tell you about my brother: he is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and a model rocketry enthusiast. I think the two of you will really get along. I knew when I met you that you and he were destined to be friends. Here he is, my brother Michael." Now, what purpose did mentioning his being a father and veteran serve? It served to help introduce who my brother is. But I didn't immediately follow that introduction with "here's Michael" - I instead followed it with some other info about why I am introducing you. Did telling you that he is a veteran introduce the idea that you would get along? Maybe. Did it serve to introduce the idea that you two will be friends? Maybe. Did it introduce who my brother is? Absolutely!

The sentence we were asked about is a question that sets up the discussion of what the practice of medicine is all about. Why should we defend it's "professional" status? Because medicine is special, an ethical as well as vocational calling. That sentence is there to set us up for the rest of the passage, which is all about what sets medicine apart from something like plumbing. It doesn't matter that the very next thing mentioned is etymology - that's just one of the things that helps us understand why medicine is special. What matters is a bigger picture - why did the author ask the question in the first place?

Finally, we can eliminate answer E because there is nothing in the passage to suggest that the author has any particular fascination with the origin of words, not even the words "trade" and "profession". He discusses those origins not because he is fascinated by words, but because discussion them furthers his main point, that medicine is special and different.

So, in short, "introducing" does not have to refer to what is mentioned immediately after the introduction. Instead, focus on why the author said what he said, what his purpose was in making the particular statement.

I hope that helps! Good luck!

[Khodi7531]

So I chose A on this...and what's annoying is that it sounded like what I wanted except for "futile". Cause that's what makes it wrong - isn't it? It's not futiless to resist the trend...he's saying you SHOULD. Idk why I still picked it. I think cause I did POE and crossed C off and was like maybe LSAT's stupid language is getting me to trip out for no reason.

Thinking of why the author had brought that question up...I immediately knew and had this thought in my head, "he's presenting the question himself (maybe specifically about medicine but it will be generally expanded into other fields as well to talk about profession/al) that's a concern, and essentially help his own argument by laying foundation to answer it.

When I look back at C and see "authors inquiry into..." I like it. But event though that sentence directly talks about practicing medicine, I didn't think that was the only reason why. He's setting up a foundation and principle that starts with physicians and medicine and goes into even more...a definition and the way of looking at professionals generally and why they're actually considered them.


This may be a lot but for some reason I didn't hesitate to mark C off and thought it may be too much "in the ball park". Typical LSAT trickery of telling you to look at this line, and then using exact words from there. A bit too good to be true....but anyway, any thoughts on my approach? Maybe how I can work to fix this?

[Alex Bodaken]

Khodi7531,

You are exactly right on as to why (A) is wrong - it's that word "futile." As you say, the author not only doesn't think it's futile to resist the trend toward defining the physician's work as a trade, but he thinks it is necessary and important (and, presumably, possible).

You are also right that you could argue that the author is doing other things than answer (C) (introducing the author's inquiry into the nature of the practice of medicine) by posing the question mentioned. But that's okay - for (C) to be correct, it only needs to be *one* of the things that the author is doing by asking the question. And the author clearly is introducing this inquiry, even if he is also, as you say, laying the foundation for his argument. So that is why (C) is credited.

Hope this helps!

AB

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I can see why (C) is correct. I'm having trouble with understanding the "nature of the practice of medicine" element.

When I first read this, I thought the answer choice meant that the author was posing the question as an inquiry into practices (such as the technical aspect of medicine, like surgery or other things pertaining to it). I didn't necessarily link "practices" to discussing the "profession" of medicine.

Can anyone help me understand what (c) means by "nature of the practice of medicine? Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Andriana!

The term "practice" has several definitions but one of them is "the continuous exercise of a profession." Really, there's not much difference in your interpretation here. If you practice medicine, then you practice the technical aspects of it, and practicing those technical aspects makes up the entire practice or profession of medicine. The phrase "the nature of the practice of medicine" is referring to that practice more generally--it doesn't suggest that the author is going to detail specific surgical practices for us. The "practice" of a profession always refers to those general practices, not the specific ones.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[TheKingLives]

Apologies if this was mentioned before, but why is D incorrect? Is it because "the author's suggestions for rallying sensible people to a concentrated defense of physicians" isn't specific enough, i.e. it's not physicians existing that needs defense, but rather how they are termed by broader society?

To a second point, I'm glad to have run into this question. I'll have to remember that "introduction" on LSAT is not limited to something immediately following it!