Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: nocturnal2% picked this

   At least one of the European vampire myths that predated Stoker’s book did not portray

   The author's argument doesn't care whether vampires are always portrayed as strictly nocturnal or not. He cares about whether vampires are always portrayed as being able to turn into a bat.

   2%
2. B

   Out of Scope: Central / South America1% picked this

   Vampire myths in Central and South America, where real vampire bats are found, portray vampires as able

   The author doesn't need to assume anything about Central and South America. If we negated this answer and said, "The vampire myths in Central and South America do not portray vampires as able to turn into bats", that would actually prove his conclusion true! The correct answer, when negated, would weaken the argument.

   1%
3. C

   Too Strong: only in Europe8% picked this

   Vampire myths did not exist outside Europe before the publication of

   The author doesn't need to assume the strong idea that vampire myths only existed in Europe prior to Stoker's book. If we negate this and say that vampire myths also existed outside Europe prior to Stoker's book, that wouldn't affect the argument at all. The author is only trying to prove that there is at least one vampire myth, from anywhere, in which the vampire is not able to turn into a bat.

   8%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   At least one of the European vampire myths that predated Stoker’s book did not portray vampires as able

   Why this is right

   The author is trying to prove that "being able to turn into a bat" is not an essential part of vampire myths, so he needs to support that by showing us that there is at least one vampire myth in which the vampire is not able to turn into a bat. His only premise (signified by "for") is that vampire myths existed in Europe prior to Stoker's book. He must, therefore, be assuming that in at least one of these vampire myths, the vampire was not able to turn into a bat. If we negated this, the "at least one" would become "none", and we would have a double-negative: none of the pre-Stoker vampire myths did not portray vampires as being able to turn into bats. If I say "none of my friends did not have ice cream", I'm saying "all of my friends had some ice cream". Here, we'd be getting "all of the pre-Stoker vampire myths did portray vampires as being able to turn into bats". That would definitely weaken the author, since he would then have no relevant premise at all with which to support his conclusion.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   81%
5. E

   Out of Scope: Stoker's familiarity7% picked this

   At the time he wrote Dracula, Stoker was familiar with earlier

   The argument doesn't care whether Stoker knew of any other vampire myths, or whether he just created his vampire myth purely from his own imagination (not knowing that other vampire myths even existed). Neither one has any impact on our conversation, which is about whether there's ever been a vampire myth in which the vampire was not able to turn into a bat.

   7%