PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 17
Critic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols of pure(46 more words not shown)
The claim that the overall(21 more words not shown)
- AIt states a(9 more words not shown)
- BIt places limits(11 more words not shown)
- CIt justifies the(6 more words not shown)
- DIt provides a(10 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Picture two vampire stories. In one, the vampire is a straightforward monster: a symbol of evil. In the other, the vampire is a sympathetic character whose motives and struggles we are invited to understand. That is the change the critic dislikes.
My first reaction is, “Why does it matter? Vampires aren't real.” But a fictional character can still represent something real. The critic's concern is that humanizing vampires weakens a powerful symbol of evil, not that actual vampires are changing their behavior.
Then the critic says moral complexity is generally good. At first, that seems to clash with the complaint. Why object to making vampires more complex if complexity is good? The final sentence gives the distinction: vampires have a special symbolic role. The critic approves of the broad trend while treating vampires as an exception.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the statement approving the broad trend does. I'd call it a concession or qualification. The conclusion is that humanizing vampires is unfortunate. The approval of complexity keeps that criticism from becoming a rejection of complexity everywhere.
Working the answers
- A
Saying that moral complexity is good does not give us a reason to oppose it in vampire stories. If anything, it raises the question of why vampires should be different. The support for that exception comes from the vampire's role as a powerful representation of evil, not from the general approval of complexity.
- BCorrect
“Places limits on how broadly” can sound abstract, especially when the conclusion already names vampires. Think about what would happen if we took the criticism further: “The critic dislikes sympathetic vampires, so the critic must want every fictional character to be simply good or evil.” The statement in question blocks that expansion.
For example, the critic could welcome a story about a human hero with conflicting motives or an enemy whose perspective is worth understanding. The critic can approve of those complex characters while wanting vampires to retain their traditional role. That is the limit: the criticism applies to humanizing vampires, not to the overall movement toward moral complexity.
So B expresses our prediction in different words. The critic's concession tells us how far to take the negative conclusion.
- C
The statement does not explain why this argument needs to be made. It acknowledges a broader trend the critic likes. The concern motivating the criticism is the loss of the vampire's symbolic role; the statement we are asked about qualifies that criticism.
- D
The critic accepts that the overall trend is good. Finding one unfortunate case within a broadly good trend does not reject the trend's general value. D turns a qualified agreement into a rejection.
- E
The conclusion is that the humanizing of vampires is unfortunate. The critic offers their traditional representation of evil as a reason for that judgment. Approving of moral complexity generally is an accompanying qualification, not the judgment the rest of the argument is trying to establish.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.