Hippocratic Oath

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct55% picked this

   affirm society’s continuing need for a code embodying

   Why this is right

   We can make this work. Our author is Challenging critics who want to get rid of the oath, by saying, "No, keep it. Tinker with the periphery if you want but we need it." The author in the middle of the 2nd paragraph says, Even [the critics' more compelling arguments] cannot negate the patients' need for assurance that physicians will pursue appropriate goals. Translation? Even though I agree with the critics legitimate concerns with parts of the oath, they don't merit getting rid of the oath, because patients need to know that their physicians are bound by some code of conduct. The following sentence: To fulfill that need [that patients have for knowing their physicians are pursuing appropriate goals], the core value [of the Hippocratic oath] of beneficence should be retained. This sentence shows the author affirming the need for a code that embodies the principle of beneficence.

   Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   55%
2. B

   Too Strong: chastise Unsupported: support reinterpretation4% picked this

   chastise critics within the medical community who support reinterpretation of a code

   The beginning of the 2nd paragraph is a little bit of chastising. The author is sort of like, "Get this garbage argument out of here about who wrote the oath. We can dismiss that noise at the outset." But the author's main purpose is responding to the "more substantive" arguments, and she does so respectfully. Not chastising them. More importantly, the critics are never said to be agitating for "a reinterpretation of the Hippocratic oath". We also haven't explicitly heard, "get rid of it", but the first paragraph feels like it's leaning more in that direction. Moreover, the author brings up reinterpretation at the end of the passage, as a sort of compromise with the critics: tell ya what -- how about we keep it for me, but we do some modern reinterpretation on the periphery for you?

   4%
3. C

   Too Narrow8% picked this

   argue that historical doubts about the origin of a certain code are irrelevant

   The author argues against that criticism for only one sentence (the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph). The author argues against the broader, "more substantive" criticisms for the rest of that 2nd paragraph. The author came here today to say "keep the oath", not to just say "stop worrying about who wrote the oath".

   8%
4. D

   Too Neutral2% picked this

   outline the pros and cons of revising a code embodying

   The verb outline doesn't do a good enough job conveying that our author had a clear position on whether the pros outweigh the cons. If you use a verb like "evaluate the pros and cons", then it indicates that the author picks a winner. This answer also makes it seem more like the author was the maestro, showing us the pros and the cons. But in reality, the first paragraph was full of attributions to other points of view, who were giving us the cons of the current version of the oath. Then the author defended the oath by talking about its pros.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong: propose a revision31% picked this

   propose a revision of a code embodying certain principles that will increase the code’s applicability

   This one is also very tempting because the author does propose that we keep the core value of beneficence, with some revisions at the oath's periphery. But our Framework helps talk us out of this -- Challenge a Position. The author didn't sit down to pen an essay saying, "Dear world, I think we should revise the Hippocratic Oath to make it more modern". Instead, she sat down to write an essay saying, "Dear critics, I don't think we should get rid of the oath. I think the core stuff is good." She indicates in the first paragraph that until very recently, no one was really challenging the oath. So her essay is set up as a reaction against this new criticism, not her own proactive project to fix the oath.

   31%