Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S2 Q17 ExplanationCritic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Critic: Vampires have traditionally been symbols of pure evil. Recently there has been a trend in entertainment of humanizing vampires. This is unfortunate. The overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing. But evil exists in one of the most powerful representations of that.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

The claim that the overall trend in entertainment toward moral complexity is a good thing plays which one of the following roles

Answer choices, explained

  1. Opposite11% picked this

    It states a principle used to support the conclusion of

    This 2nd to last sentence is not support for the conclusion. The author has to pivot away from this claim to go into her support in the last sentence.

  2. Correct64% picked this

    It places limits on how broadly the conclusion of the argument

    Why this is right

    This is the only answer that feels like "counterpoint / opposing", since it limits the conclusion. The author is saying, "my criticism of humanizing bad guys for the sake of showing moral complexity is limited to vampires; overall I think it's a good thing."

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

  3. Opposite13% picked this

    It justifies the need for the argument?s

    "Justifies the need for the argument" sounds like Support, and we're looking for something Opposing. In and of itself, this 2nd to last sentence makes it sound like the author does not need to make an argument against humanizing vampires (since it's part of a trend that is a good thing).

  4. Not a Hypothesis10% picked this

    It provides a hypothesis that is rejected in the conclusion of

    A hypothesis is a claim that tries to explain a given phenomenon. The sentence we're asked about isn't trying to explain why a phenomenon occurred / is occurring. And the conclusion is not rejecting this sentence, since our author is saying both things. She's not concluding that she is wrong.

  5. Wrong Role2% picked this

    It is the conclusion of the

    The conclusion is "This is unfortunate", which is both our author's opinion and supported. The claim we're asked about is our author's opinion, but it isn't supported (we could ask "why should we believe that moral complexity is a good thing?" and we wouldn't see any answer provided in the paragraph), so it can't be the conclusion.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free