I'm not sure I agree with the explanation of (E) here. The passage says narratologists tend not to focus on direct psychological characterization. But Cather is not a narratologist, according to the passage, rather she's someone who would be an appropriate object of study to narratologists. There's no clear inference to be made here from the lack of focus from narratologists to what's present in Cather's work. Maybe narratologists sometimes study realistic novels but choose not to focus on particular features of those works, for example.

Some of these examples don't seem to be equivalent in meaning to 'If one is a Jedi, then one uses the Force'.

A number of them seem to treat using the Force as equivalent to being capable of using the Force, which are clearly not equivalent. (2), (3), (4), (7), and (8) at least all merely assert that all Jedi can or are capable of using the Force. This is weaker than the original, which says that all Jedi actually do use the Force.

Support for (C) from the claim that criminal liability "aim[s] at deterrence". The inference from aim to main function is a jump, but no more, it seems to me, than the jumps required for (D).