The author is the one who dismissed the issue of historical doubt about the origin of the oath. It wouldn’t make sense for the author to then call her own rejection of the historical issue premature.

The author wants to retain the core value of beneficence. It wouldn’t make sense for the author to then finish by being open to revision of that core value. Although the author is open to revision of the oath, this doesn’t imply being open to revision of the core value.

The end of the last paragraph has nothing to do with the motivations of the critics. In fact, P2 deals only with the critics’ arguments and the author’s own view about what should be done with the oath. Why the critics hold the view that they hold is not discussed. So (C) is both unsupported by the passage and unrelated to the end of the passage.

The author’s main point and the point at the end of the passage relate to the Hippocratic oath and what should be done with it. The author never tries to draw a broader conclusion concerning modern ideas about medical ethics. So it wouldn’t make sense for the passage to finish by claiming that some aspect of the Hippocratic oath supports a conclusion about modern medical ethics.

This is the best answer. (E) conforms to the main point of the passage and the point at the end of the last paragraph. The main point is that critics who think we need to dramatically change the oath are not correct. In other words, we don’t need “wholesale” (large-scale) revision of the oath. The point at the end is that we already engage in reinterpretation of the oath; so we don’t need to dramatically change the oath.