TB_UNIT9MCEXAM_6023fba75d8826.6023fba78a04e5.99415373.pdf -...

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • AgentAlpaca912
  • 12
  • 83% (6) 5 out of 6 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 12 pages.

AP English Language and Composition Test Booklet UNIT 9 MC EXAM Name Copyright © 2021. The College Board. These materials are part of a College Board program. Use or distribution of these materials online or in print beyond your school’s participation in the program is prohibited. Page 1 of 12 (The following passage is excerpted from a recently published book on health.) The medical profession won its monopoly over the business of healing by invoking its scientific basis, and maintained that monopoly by diligently patrolling its borders against the alternatives, long described as “pseudoscience.” A little more than a century ago, the matter appeared to be settled when nonphysicians were legally barred from practicing, which in the United States meant outlawing midwifery in favor of obstetrics and marginalizing homeopathy in favor of “allopathic,” aka “regular” or scientific, medicine. Only slowly did any kind of real détente [1] arise, with the AMA-style [2] doctors gradually softening their invective against alternatives. As late as the 1950s, the American Cancer Society, which is about as medically conventional as a health-related group could be, still had a “Committee on Quackery.” [3] But according to Harvard magazine: “Later that [committee] turned into a committee on ‘unproven methods of cancer management,’ superseded by one on ‘questionable methods.’ The names indicate a gradual acceptance of the unconventional; today the cancer society has a Committee on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). The evolving vocabulary also reflects a sea change underway throughout medicine. In the last few years, the term ‘alternative,’ suggesting something done instead of conventional medicine, has been giving way to ‘complementary,’ a therapy done along with mainstream treatment. Both words may ultimately be replaced by ‘integrative medicine’—the use of techniques like acupuncture, massage, herbal treatments, and meditation in regular medical practice.” This may look like commendable humility on the part of conventional medicine—or it may look like a shameless compromise. But how scientific is conventional “scientific” medicine anyway? By the late twentieth century, mathematically oriented physicians, as well as many patients, were beginning to ask for something more than a doctor’s word for the efficacy of medical interventions and something more tangible than the mere aura of science. They wanted hard evidence, and one familiar procedure after another has come up short. In 1974, a former physician turned mathematician, David M. Eddy, was asked to give a talk on medical decision making, and chose to focus on diagnostic mammography since Betty Ford’s and Happy Rockefeller’s [4] breast cancers were very much in the news at the time. Years later, he wrote that he had “planned to write out the decision tree I presume their physicians had used, fully expecting to find strong evidence, good numbers, and sound reasoning that I could describe to my audience. But to my amazement I found very few numbers, no formal

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture