Try to picture someone saying this particular argument about vampires out loud to you. You know in the context of the argument that their statement about the move to moral complexity is definitely not in line with the stance they're taking. So the answer choices that set up this statement as being some sort of positive support of the speaker's conclusion - A, C, and E - are all wrong. Like if the person arguing this tried to say that vampires should be portrayed as strictly evil because moral complexity is good you would be like - huh? Are you listening to what you're saying?

D makes the statement out to be a hypothesis. But if you look at the argument, it's not really introduced as a hypothesis. Again, imagine the stimulus as a verbal argument. If someone says "X is good", you're just going to assume they're telling the truth. They're saying yeah, it is good. Not "some people might think X is good", but that X is good. So to say that they then reject this statement is not really correct, because they're really saying that both are true - vampires should not be portrayed as good, but also that moral complexity is generally good. OK, so portrayal of vampires is the exception, it seems.

That's why B is correct. The person says yes I agree that X is good, but this is a specific instance where X does not apply - and conversely, that this exception made for vampires is not applicable to the larger movement in entertainment.

C is not correct because it isn't relevant - at best it's a stretch. It's basically saying that some scientific results that have important implications for human health are based on things other than animal studies - for example, they might be based on past data from human patients, or behaviours we've seen in plants or something. That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't apply to what we're talking about because we are specifically talking about an animal study. This answer choice might have tripped you up if you tried to use conditional reasoning here, with 'scientific results that have important implications for human health' as the sufficient and 'not based on laboratory animal studies' as the necessary. Remember that this is a some relationship and so you can't just take a contrapositive to find that the scientific results do not have important implications for human health.

A is correct because it undermines the elaboration provided by the researcher. Their reasoning is that the lab animals are already eating high calorie diets, and we can take their argument to mean that by reducing the animals' calorie intakes you're only seeing a normal life span, not an elongated one. Like, sure their lives SEEM longer, but actually this is their normal life span and they just normally eat way too much and die young. A undercuts this by saying well humans are also eating way too much. If that's true, then the doctors advocating for lower calorie diets are really just applying the same principle - by reducing calorie intake, you're returning to a normal life span, which will be longer than the current average life span. Remember that 'extension' of life span is relative to current life span of a North American, not necessarily the average life span for a healthy human.

(A) says that no professors are 18 yrs old. However, the chain shows us that being a professor necessitates that you are 18 or older - so it is possible there is a prof who is exactly 18.

(B) says that the entirety of the group of brilliant people must belong to either the subset professors, legal voters, or people under 18. But while there is a some arrow connecting brilliant people to each of these three groups, that does not mean that this constitutes the ENTIRE group of brilliant people - there may be another 'some' arrow. This may not be super clear from the chain, but it is clear based on the wording of the stimulus.

(C) says that some legal voters are not professors. But as we don't have a direct connection between these two groups, we can't say that for sure. Each of these two groups belongs to the larger group of 'brilliant people', and each also necessitates that its members are 18 or older. We would be able to select this choice if the stimulus said, for example, that if you were a professor, you had a PhD, and some legal voters did not have a PhD. Well, then it's clear that some legal voters are not professors because they do not satisfy the necessary. The stimulus doesn't provide us with any such information, so we can't say that this must be true.

(D) says that some professors are neither legal voters nor brilliant people. This is wrong for the same reason (C) is wrong - we just don't have the information indicating otherwise. Based on the chain alone, and recognizing that 'some' logically includes 'all', it's possible that every single member of the group 'professors' falls under the larger groups 'brilliant people' AND 'legal voters'. If this doesn't make sense, it might help to draw the connections in the form of shapes, like circles. The 'brilliant people' circle has some sort of overlap with the 'professors' and 'legal voters' circles. It is possible that the 'brilliant people' circle is located entirely within a larger 'legal voters' circle, and that the 'legal voters' circle itself is entirely contained within the giant 'brilliant people' circle.

(E) states that some brilliant people are neither professors nor legal voters. Look at the chain - SOME brilliant people must be under the age of 18, but if someone is a professor or a legal voter, they must be 18 and over. This group of brilliant people under 18 fails the necessary condition, so we negate the sufficient to find that they are neither professors nor legal voters. Therefore (E) is correct.