Q27

[alovitt]

I narrowed it down to B and D, but picked B. I understand that the author is arguing in favor of changes in method but that didn't seem like his primary concern; he only discusses that at the end. My interpretation was that the way woman medical practitioner is defined is often too narrow, according to the author. Isn't that why he cites Pelling and Webster for essentially improving the definition. And wouldn't changes in methodology require revising the definitions of certain concepts, but not vis versa? Please help, Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

I believe these are the two answers most people would be left with on this question.

This passage is about broadening the parameters of studying women practitioners in the Middle Ages. We have to be careful of having a narrow scope in the study because we may be missing out on women that were actually doing the jobs of practitioners although strict adherence to evidence available would not show that.

The second paragraph of the passage brings up a question of "...or does it result from the methods historians use?"

The author says that their methods may be the problem.

Part of the solution the author calls for in a change of method is to loosen up on the definition of things, whether its "learned" medicine or the definition of a medical practitioner.

It is a small distinction, but the author uses the definition aspect in lieu of a method change.

[alovitt]

Thanks Timmy, and after another read today I see there is clear evidence that he wants a change in methods used for research (line 42 and 60-63) but would you please elaborate a little further as to why B is wrong? I see that D is right now, and the author basically explicity suggests D. I have the RC guide and I know it says I should refine my approach rather than strictly adhering to book's technique. But is there something specific I need to consider when I arrive at a purpose question? What really screwed me up when I first narrowed it down to B and D was that I thought D would literally require B in this case. So if D is true then I figured that B must also be true, which is why I picked the "narrower choice." Aren't the changes in method to which the author alludes really his wanting to broaden (revise) the definitions of certain concepts (women practitioners)? Nuances like this really throw me off and I feel like I'm almost guessing rather than confidently deciding. Any tips for this sort of thing?

[timmydoeslsat]

I do not think it perfectly captures what the change in method is by simply referring it to revising a definition.

It may be true that a medical practitioner is X, but how do we go about searching for those that were "X." It may be the case that women practitioners were "X" but it was not recorded.

So really how to search is at issue and not so much the definition.

The author even begins the third paragraph by stating, "The advantages of broadening the scope..."

This supports the idea that the author's purpose is to argue for a certain change in methodology.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice discussion you two! I'll just offer my two cents, which for the most part lines up with Timmy's explanation.

The first thing I'd ask myself is, "does the author take a position?" Notice the language in these answer choices.

(A) describing
(B) revising
(C) comparing
(D) arguing
(E) chronicling

The author is advocating a position, which leads me to move the direction of answer choice (D) almost immediately. But I can see how answer choice (B) may still be tempting. Maybe the author is advocating that we make a "revision."

So the next thing I would do is look for textual evidence for either a new definition or a new method. In lines 29-37 I see both the words "define" and "method." The author is discussing the defining the parameters of the investigation, not the definition of a term. But the author does suggest that the method (defining the parameters) needs could explain why women were underrepresented.

Another line reference that leads me to think that the definitions were okay is lines 19-22 where the author says that preserving the terminological distinctions "somewhat increases the quality of the information extracted."

So all indications suggest that the author is fine with the definition fo the terms, but not the parameters of the investigation - eliminating answer choice (B).

Hope that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

Couldn't we just eliminate (B) because it says revising the definitions of concepts? I was also down to (B) and (D) but I picked (D) because the passage is a bit more argumentative than anything else. In addition, (D) fit perfectly with (B) on #22. I left (B) there but eliminated it during review because of the numbers error.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that there aren’t multiple terms the author wants to revise the definition of, but I think I disagree that there are ANY.

What definition of a concept do you think the author was revising?

The definition of "woman medical practitioner"?

I have a hard time saying the author wants to revise the definition of that. The author complains that most historians continue to conflate this word with "midwife", but the author is never saying or implying that the actual definition of "woman medical practitioner" is "midwife".

Instead, the author is insisting on the real definition of "woman medical practitioner", a broad term encompassing midwives, physicians, surgeons, etc.

For me, the choice of (B) vs. (D) just deals with Main Point / Purpose. The author is only discussing the terms in the first paragraph. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraph are all about broadening the scope of studies targeting medieval medicine. From line 22 until the end of the passage, we’re discussing ways in which historians could consider other sources, instances, and interpretations of females’ role in medieval medicine.