#25 - Specific Reference, Except

[WildMountainElk]

I'm struggling with how to eliminate answer choice E. The wording of answer choice E is obviously a little out of the ordinary, but it seems like it exactly captures the objective of teaching ethics via narrative literature, i.e. to prepare future doctors for the many complex, human situations they will have to deal with. If, after an ethics education via narrative literature, future doctors were still just as shocked at the ethical dilemnas they faced, it seems that the education would have been a failure.

[Adam Tyson]

You shouldn't eliminate answer E, WildMountainElk - you should select it, because it is the correct answer!

Focus for a moment on the question itself. You should be looking for four things that the passage DID say about narrative literature, and eliminate those as wrong answers since this is an EXCEPT question. Select the one thing that the author did NOT say, and answer E was never mentioned.

Don't think about whether the passage may have implied something about the answer, because that is not what the question asked you to find or eliminate. The wrong answers will be directly supported by the text, either as a quote or a paraphrase of what the author said. The correct answer will not be expressed in the text, even if it seems like a reasonable inference we might draw from what they said.

Finally, don't overreach in your analysis. Just because doctors might be better prepared to deal with many different ethical dilemmas thanks to this type of education doesn't mean they will be "insulated" from the shock of some of them. "Insulated" suggests clinical detachment, while the author argues that an approach using narrative literature would actually make doctors more empathetic. Looked at that way, answer E is somewhat opposite to what the author claims!