PrepTest 110, Section 2, Question 23
To be horrific, a monster must be threatening.(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- AAny horror-story monster(6 more words not shown)
- BA monster that(12 more words not shown)
- CIf a monster(13 more words not shown)
- DIf a monster(12 more words not shown)
- EAll monsters that(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A horrific monster has to be threatening. That doesn't mean every threatening monster is horrific. The first statement gives us something a horrific monster must have, not a guarantee that anything with that feature qualifies.
Physical danger is another way to establish that a monster is threatening. If the monster is physically dangerous, we have enough to call it threatening whether or not it also presents psychological or other dangers. Notice that this rule gets us to 'threatening,' not all the way to 'horrific.'
The final sentence gives us a different route: even a monster that is physically harmless is horrific if it inspires revulsion. A monster doesn't have to injure someone to horrify them. Being revolting can be enough.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what follows from these statements. I don't need to guess the exact answer yet. I'll check each choice against the relationships we actually have, being careful not to turn one way of qualifying into the only way.
Working the answers
- A
This takes the first statement too far. Every horrific monster must be threatening, but we aren't told that every threatening monster is horrific. A monster could meet the threatening requirement without qualifying as horrific. A treats a required feature as if it were enough by itself.
- B
Not inspiring revulsion doesn't rule out being horrific. The passage gives revulsion as a way for a monster to be horrific; it doesn't say every horrific monster must inspire it. Adding that the monster is psychologically dangerous doesn't establish the proposed conclusion either. We have no rule that makes this combination nonhorrific.
- C
A physically harmless monster could still inspire revulsion, and the last sentence says that would make it horrific. Triggering infantile fears doesn't prevent it from also being revolting. C wrongly treats the absence of physical danger as enough to exclude something the passage expressly allows.
- D
Why couldn't this monster inspire revulsion? The passage gives us a result of inspiring revulsion, but no rule says a horrific, psychologically threatening monster cannot inspire it. All those features could occur together. D adds an exclusion we were never given.
- ECorrect
Start with the part of this description that lets us use the last sentence: these monsters are not physically dangerous, but they inspire revulsion. That is enough to make them horrific. Now use the first sentence: anything horrific must be threatening. So these monsters must be threatening.
The added psychological danger doesn't change that chain. We already have what we need: a physically harmless but revolting monster is horrific, and a horrific monster is threatening. E connects two statements without changing their direction.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.