#17 - Critic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols of

[lawadvocate!]

Hello,

I originally chose answer C, but during BR chose the correct answer as B. But, I'm still fuzzy on why it's correct. Can someone confirm if this is accurate?

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It is unfortunate that there has been a recent trend in the entertainment of humanizing vampires.
WHY?
Evidence: (The overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing-is this a sub conclusion? bc it's another opinion). But evil exists in the world, and the vampire myth is one of the most powerful representations of that.

The critic acknowledges that the trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing. But says it doesn't need to apply to everything in entertainment. Hence, B places a limit on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized?

Any clarification would help, thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Your analysis is pretty good, lawadvocate! But I would say that the claim in question about the overall trend is NOT evidence. That's because it doesn't do anything to support the conclusion that the vampire trend is unfortunate. Instead, it is a general claim that conflicts with the conclusion. Think of it as a concession on the part of the author, like she's saying "sure, this is true, BUT we shouldn't take it too far."

Nice work!

[jm123]

I got the correct answer for this question but only because I eliminated all other answer choices. I wanted to make sure my breakdown of the stimulus was correct.

Premise: Vampires have traditionally been symbols of pure evil.
Premise: But evil exists in the world, and the vampire myth is one of the most powerful representations of that.
Conclusion: The recent trend in entertainment of humanizing vampires is unfortunate.

Then the question stem asks me to evaluate the role played by: "The overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing."

When I evaluated the argument, I just said this is just a statement contained in the argument. Not a conclusion and not a premise.

A. It states a principle used to support the conclusion of the argument.- Eliminated this because it does not support the conclusion.

B. It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized.- Kept as a contender and then later chose when all other answer choices were eliminated.

C. It justifies the need for the argument's being given.- Does not justify anything for the argument. I viewed this answer choice as one that describes a premise.

D. It provides a hypothesis that is rejected in the conclusion of the argument.- It does not get rejected. In fact, the opposite, the critic acknowledges this statement and says it is a good thing.

E. It is the conclusion of the argument.- It is not the conclusion.

[Adam Tyson]

Perfect, jm123! I have nothing to add, other than to say well done!

[AK921]

Hello!

Can I please get more details on what the authors mean by "It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument should be generalized."

If the conclusion is "There has been a trend in entertainment of humanizing vampires. This is unfortunate".. how does "that the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing" place a limit on the argument?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

The conclusion is that the recent trend of humanizing vampires is unfortunate. This is supported by the premise that vampires represent one of the most powerful representations of evil. So the author thinks we shouldn't be humanizing vampires.

But the author thinks that in general, a trend towards moral complexity is a good thing, so the author doesn't want us to take their conclusion too far and interpret their argument as a general rejection of that moral complexity. It's saying that moral complexity is a good thing, but we shouldn't take it so far as to humanize vampires because we also need to retain some powerful representations of evil.

Thus, "the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing" is the author's way of saying "don't take my conclusion about vampires too far; this argument is limited to vampires." That's what answer B means by placing a limit on how broadly we should generalize the conclusion.

[April30Gang]

Hello,

Isn't the last sentence a more fitting description of B? The preceding sentence highlights a trend as something good. It's s broad statement. Then the last sentence sets some limit-acknowledging that while it is good, vampires can't fall into that category of moral complexity. What am I missing here?

[Robert Carroll]

April30Gang,

But the trend is the opposite of what the author wants to happen in the vampire case. The trend is overall good, but the target situation is a situation where the author doesn't want the trend to extend.

I think you're confusing the trend and the author's conclusion. The trend is moral complexity. The conclusion is that vampires should not be humanized, a particular example of moral complexity the author decries. So the last sentence places limits on the trend, but answer choice (B) is talking about limits on the author's conclusion.

Robert Carroll

[lsatlies]

This question completely fails because the author is very explicitly talking exclusively and only about humanizing vampires. If they had said something like "the overall trend is good, but some instances are bad, such as the vampire" it would be restraining the argument. But he doesn't. He's only talking about vampires. If you remove the sentence about the overall trend being good, he's still only, exclusively talking about vampires. There is no possible way to extrapolate his argument out towards being a condemnation of the trend of moral complexity without completely making up entirely unfounded assumptions on top of what he's saying. Ergo, saying the trend is overall good is not placing any limits on the conclusion. It is, with or without that statement, a conclusion exclusively and specifically limited to vampires, and as such this question is simply wrong.