Q23

[hippo3717]

Ok...
this question... I chose A instead of E.

I immediately removed B,C, and D due to various reasons.

Now, I could see how E is something that can be inferred:
Paragraph 2 talks about phil is not enough and paragraph 1 talks about that training is not enough.
Therefore E is correct...

But I thought A was totally supported by the paragraph A: "Requiring students to immerse themselves COMPLETELY in medical course work risks disconnecting..."

From this, couldn't you infer A?

I mean I think the reason E is more of a correct answer because it paraphrases statements from paragraph 1 and 2.

Would you say for RC inference questions, the answer choice typically paraphrases what's already presented in the argument?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Wonderfully put:
Would you say for RC inference questions, the answer choice typically paraphrases what's already presented in the argument?

Yes, and this is also true for Logical Reasoning Inference questions. A lot of people make these questions harder on themselves by assuming the test wants you to read in something beyond what was said.

In LR, the correct answer is usually a synthesis of two or more sentences but sometimes it's just a paraphrase of one.

In RC, the correct answer is usually a paraphrase of one sentence, but sometimes it's a synthesis of two or more.

In both cases, we have two weapons:
- ELIMINATE any answer that brings up something we can't prove/support from the passage provided.
The 3 biggest offenders are EXTREME language, OUT OF SCOPE ideas, and COMPARISONS that were never made.

- CHOOSE the answer you can prove by pointing to the line(s) that supports the answer choice.

For choice (A), you were looking at exactly the correct line reference when you typed this:

But I thought A was totally supported by the paragraph A: "Requiring students to immerse themselves COMPLETELY in medical course work risks disconnecting..."

The irony is that your "..." is exactly where (A) goes astray. The rest of that line 6-9 warns that heavy coursework may disconnect medical students from the personal and ethical aspects of doctoring.

(A) says that the heavy coursework often disconnects students from adequate emphasis to courses in medical ethics.

Those two bolded phrases refer to completely different things:
- being a doctor
vs.
- taking an ethics course in med school

(B) is one of those "fake" comparisons ... and 'nonfiction' is out of scope

(C) "should" is strong, and the only thing the author advocated was that med students read narratives, not that 'more direct practical experience' be supplemented.

(D) "only by" and "purely" are too extreme

(E) as you indicated is the type of correct answer that's really a synthesis of several claims in the 1st and 2nd paragraph ... and here it really reinforces the main point of the passage: "science and philosophical ethics aren't doing enough, so med students should be trained with narrative literature as well".

Hope this helps.

[doylemurphy89]

I eliminated A for different reasons. I thought that medical schools do give an emphasis to medical ethics but that it is on the abstract theory of ethics. So it's not that there is inadequate emphasis but rather that the emphasis is focused too much on the abstract. If this reasoning is incorrect then please let me know

[513852276]

(E) as you indicated is the type of correct answer that's really a synthesis of several claims in the 1st and 2nd paragraph ... and here it really reinforces the main point of the passage: "science and philosophical ethics aren't doing enough, so med students should be trained with narrative literature as well".

Is "emotional dimension" in answer choice an interchangeable term for "ethical dilemma" discussed in article?