Q27

[ohsobecca]

I just flat-out got this question wrong. I picked D. The author clearly has some problems with the way ethics is taught in med schools but I thought s/he admitted that the "conceptual clarity" of the method is partially useful (l. 17-18) but then goes on to say that "it contributes little to understanding..." (l. 20). Why is the correct answer E? The last part gets me especially--where does the passage talk about partially approved-of effects? Thanks!!

[bbirdwell]

You quoted it! "Conceptual clarity" is a good thing, and it's an effect of traditional ethics education. This is the second part of the answer choice: "approval of some of its effects."

And, as you said, there are a instances where the author states some problems with modern ethics, without dismissing it as a whole (line 9 "insufficient"). This is the first part of the answer choice: "partial disapproval."

[jm.kahn]

I was stumped by the choices as I was expecting that an answer choice will say "full disapproval of the method" instead of "partial". Why is the disapproval only "partial" and not "full"?

We know from lines 17-19 that conceptual clarity provided by the method can be useful, but that is still only a positive effect which doesn't change author's stance that the method is simply insufficient. So, if a method has any positive effect mentioned by the author, can one simply infer that the author's opinion is not of "full disapproval"?

I initially picked C as the answer as I thought that lines 17-22 are very clinical in their evaluation of the method. Why is it not "clinical indifference toward its effects"?

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct: if an author says something positive, then it's not "complete disapproval".

Complete = 100%
Partial = 1-99%

"Clinical indifference" means you expressed no opinion. You had no emotional reaction.

Do you really think the author expressed no opinion?
In that line she says that the traditional ethics "contributes little to the understanding ... they'll face". "A true foundation must be predicated on ____". In line 56, she says that using narrative would serve "as a corrective" to the status quo.

The author's entire purpose in writing the passage is to recommend narrative literature as a way of improving ethical education among med students.

I think you're hearing "clinical" as "analytical". Those can be fairly equivalent.

But "indifference" means having no opinion.

The author's evaluation may sound reasonable, clinical, analytical ... but it definitely has a point of view. Traditional ethics = lacking. Narrative literature = good.

== other answers ==
(A), (B), and (D) all have the unsupportably extreme "all".

[emily315]

Im really confused which part refers to the method and which part is the effect.
Why the correct answer is disapproval of the method and approval of some of the effects?
does it mean that the method is
"theorizing about ethics" ? [author disapproval]
and the effect is
"conceptual clarity" [approval]
"little understanding of everyday human experience" [disapproval]
"little prep for ethical dilemmas they face as physicians" [disapproval]