Q17 - Critic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols

[christine.defenbaugh]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Recent humanizing of vampires is unfortunate.
Evidence: Evil exists, and the vampire myth is a great representation of that.

Answer Anticipation:
To determine where "overall trend to moral complexity = good" fits into the argument, we should start with basic argument core breakdown. After sorting the P-->C , how does this statement fit in? There's a contrast between this and the premise (indicated by "but"). And this can't itself be a premise, as it seems to strike against the conclusion - trend is good, but this specific thing is bad. We might call this a concession, or just roughly label it 'counter something', but that should help us winnow down the answers.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This would be a premise. The quote cuts against the conclusion, it doesn't support it.

(B) A counter-ish answer! Reading it more carefully, we should see that this outlines exactly what the quote is doing. General trend = good (quote), but this specific instance = bad (conclusion). By separating the specific from the general, this quote prohibits generalizing.

(C) This is premise-ish. Again, the quote cuts against the conclusion.

(D) While this is a 'counter ish' answer (and as such might survive the first quick pass), the author doesn't reject this counterclaim - instead it's accepted and worked around.

(E) Nothing else in the argument supports the quote, so it can't be the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern:
There are many ways an author can handle ideas that run counter to the argument itself. While a bare bones 'is this for or against the argument' is a great first pass strategy, on the second pass we have to read more carefully to find the accurate description.

#officialexplanation