Unlike its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible,

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:00 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members
Unlike its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, lobotomy was initially hailed as a revolutionary therapeutic technique so much that the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz who introduced the procedure was in fact awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949 for his contribution.
(A) Unlike its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, lobotomy was initially hailed as a revolutionary therapeutic technique so much that the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz who introduced the
procedure was
(B) Despite its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, lobotomy was initially hailed as a revolutionary therapeutic technique; and along with the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz who introduced
the procedure was
(C) Despite its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, lobotomy was initially hailed as a revolutionary therapeutic technique; Egas Moniz, the Portuguese neurologist who introduced the procedure,
was
(D) Unlike its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, that of lobotomy initially was hailed as a revolutionary technique, such that Egas Moniz, the Portuguese neurologist who introduced the
procedure, was
(E) In contrast to its modern-day status as bioethically impermissible, the initial status of lobotomy was hailed as a revolutionary technique; Egas Moniz, the Portuguese neurologist who introduced the procedure, was

OA is C

Legendary Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by nikhilgmat31 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:58 pm
+1 for C

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:00 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by conquistador » Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:49 am
I agree with the OE but still not convinced regarding one aspect.
Here were comparing status of lobotomy in past and present highlighting its contrast.
If we say

Unlike/In contrast to its present status its past status was something different. This is our context right?

but if we say Despite its present status, its past status was sth different. Does it properly makes sense?
How does its present status affect its past status.
I really feel that word despite is not preferred compared to unlike/in contrast to or something else.

See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Quote:
despite:
Without being affected by; in spite of:
he remains a great leader despite age and infirmity

MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
[MASS NOUN] archaic Back to top
1Contemptuous treatment or behaviour; outrage:
the despite done by him to the holy relics

MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2Contempt; disdain:
the theatre only earns my despite