Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 2 · Question 18

Incorrect. If this answer ended with as being able to turn into bats, we'd have our answer. However, instead, it talks about another feature of vampires—their nocturnal nature. This answer is therefore out of scope in that it doesn't speak to the assumption the argument is meant to rebut. (Yes, bats are nocturnal, but a vampire that turns into a bat wouldn't have to be.)

Incorrect. This answer is out of scope in discussing vampire myths in Central and South America. Without knowing if these myths are from earlier or later than the European ones and whether they influenced them, we can't tie the two together. The argument doesn't even require there to be vampire myths in other areas of the world.

Incorrect. This answer is a little better than (B) in that it at least ties into the timeline in the stimulus (before the publication"). However, without knowing if these myths included the ability of vampires to turn into bats or not, it's out of scope. Even if vampire myths did exist outside of Europe before Dracula was released, that book still could have been the first place where vampires could turn into bats.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background — In Dracula, vampires could turn into bats.
Common belief — This ability is a key part of vampire myths
Rebuttal — Vampire myths existed in Europe well before Dracula
Therefore — Turning into a bat isn't a key part of vampire myths

Answer Anticipation:
Thanks for the definition of vampire, LSAT!

First, note that we rephrased the conclusion in our Summary. The conclusion as written calls back to an earlier assumption and calls it false, so we rephrased it to reflect the content—what it means for that assumption to be false. If the assumption is that a detail is key to a myth, then that being false means it's not key to the myth.

What evidence does the author present to back that up? That vampire myths existed in Europe well before Dracula was released. However, there's no details provided about those myths. In order for the argument to hold together, vampires turning into bats can't be a universal feature of those myths. If they are, then the belief is actually looking to be true; if they aren't or Dracula is one of the first places it appears, then the belief isn't looking so good.

Let's find an answer that establishes that vampires turning into bats wasn't a key feature of these earlier vampire myths.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the earlier myths to the ability of vampires to turn into bats. And it is necessary that some of them didn't feature that ability to reach the conclusion that it's not an essential part of the vampire myth. The negation here gets a little tricky, but it becomes None of the European vampire myths from before Dracula don't portray vampires as able to turn into bats." "Fixing" the double negative here—All of the earlier European vampire myths have vampires turning into bats. If that's the case, then the argument falls apart since they don't show that the common assumption is wrong.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion is stated in terms that refer back to earlier ideas, or cast judgment on them, always rephrase it to reflect the actual content/meaning of it. This will make it a lot easier to note any gaps in the reasoning.

Incorrect. What Stoker was aware of is out of scope since the argument is about the reality of the situation.