Q22

[tzyc]

I'm confused...it seems the author does not suggest to change the definition because s/he says "terminological distinctions somewhat increases the quality of the information"...but it's true they count the number of women medical practitioners differently depending on resources (eg. Gottfried and researchers and seems the author does not like Gottfried finding? because he counted less...) and s/he says it's due to parameters (I guess parameters mean factors contributed to the definition, right?) and that seems s/he suggests to change definition...broaden or change the scope.
But in answer B, it then says to change their method...I think the related part is when the author says "scholars must also reopen the whole question...usually presented", but do not understand whether it means changing "method" because later s/he questions, "is this due to the limitations...or result from the methods" so it seems s/he is unsure whether it's due to method too. (so I don't know why the author would suggests to change it if s/he is unsure about it...)
Or did I see wrong parts of the passage?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

You're pretty close.

Keep your thinking on the passage organized around the author's overall purpose. By the time you reached the end, why was the author bothering to write on the topic of female medical practitioners in medieval times?

What was the she ultimately claiming, critiquing, suggesting, etc.?

My first clue in this passage was line 5. Whenever an RC passage begins by describing what scientists "typically assume" or in this case, what "most historians" do, the author will almost always be pushing back against that idea, trying to clarify their misconception.

Most historians conflate "woman medical practitioner" with "midwife". Our author doesn't like that. "This common practice obscures" (line 9)

The transition sentence at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph is saying, "While that stuff I was complaining about in the 1st paragraph somewhat corrects the problem, we need to ask ourselves whether there's an even deeper problem". "Preserving terminological distinctions" just refers to "NOT lumping all female medical personnel together as 'midwives'".

So what's the deeper problem in paragraph 2? Why is the FEMALE medical practitioner evidence such a "tiny fraction" of the overall evidence?

Lines 26-28 give us the author's probable answer.

Is it "limitations of the historical record" as some have claimed (oooh, our author doesn't agree)
or is it "the methods historians use"? (woot! woot! there's our winner)

The next sentence begins with "Granted", which means it's function will be to briefly agree with the author's opponents. So this sentence just agrees that "the limitations of the historical record" are somewhat relevant.

NONETHELESS (<--- the keyword that tells us the author is pivoting into her REAL point) the PARAMETERS RESEARCHERS CHOOSE (their method) may contribute to the problem.

The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph makes clear that the author endorses the change in method: "the advantages of broadening the scope ... is immediately apparent".

The 4th paragraph endorses yet another change in method by saying that "future studies might also make profitable use of ....".

Ultimately, the author's purpose is to suggest ways that historians could develop a fuller, more accurate picture of medieval female medical practitioners.

(A) is focused on a fake comparison ... England vs. the rest of Western Europe is nowhere near the central focus of this passage

(C) "primarily" is extreme, which gives this a red flag ... as we just discussed, the 2nd paragraph agrees that the limitations of the historical record are partly responsible but definitely does NOT say it is the primary reason.

(D) There aren't any studies identified as "recent" ... this answer is the trap of describing what the author wants, not what recent research has given us.

(E) This is too narrowly relating to the final paragraph.

Hope this helps.