Question 120·Hard·Command of Evidence
When it first appeared in 1818, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein startled readers with its speculative premise—a scientist constructing life from inanimate matter. In the two centuries since, the novel has often been read as a dire warning about the dangers of unbridled scientific ambition. Yet recent criticism has complicated that view. Literary historian Dahlia Trent observes that the narrative “lingers on the thrill of discovery,” while philosopher Nigel Corwin points to the creature’s eloquence as proof that knowledge can produce marvels as easily as monsters. Taken together, these reassessments suggest that although Frankenstein helped inaugurate modern science fiction, it does not function primarily as a condemnation of scientific hubris; rather, it affirms the transformative potential of human ingenuity.
Which quotation from a literary scholar most directly challenges the underlined claim in the passage?
For “most directly supports/challenges” questions, isolate the claim’s core (here: not primarily a condemnation; affirms ingenuity). Then look for an option that states the clearest opposite using parallel concepts (tragedy caused by crossing moral boundaries in scientific inquiry). Eliminate choices that are positive or merely nuanced/neutral, since they won’t directly challenge a strong interpretive claim.
Hints
Restate the underlined claim in your own words
Put the underlined sentence into simpler language. Is the passage saying the novel mainly warns against scientific overreach, or mainly affirms what human ingenuity can do?
Use the word “challenges” precisely
A quote that challenges must push back against the claim. Look for a scholar who treats the novel as a strong moral warning about science, not as admiration/ambivalence.
Look for moral boundaries and causation of tragedy
Scan for language that makes scientific overstepping the cause of the novel’s tragedies (for example: “inevitable result,” “moral boundaries,” “every tragedy”).
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint what the underlined claim is saying
Focus on the key parts of the underlined sentence:
- The novel does not function primarily as a condemnation of scientific hubris (it is not mainly criticizing arrogant or overreaching science).
- Instead, it affirms the transformative potential of human ingenuity (it leans positive about what human creativity and innovation can do).
So the author’s claim is: Frankenstein is more about affirming human ingenuity than warning against dangerous, overconfident science.
Figure out what a direct challenge would say
A quotation that challenges this claim should argue the opposite:
- It should portray the novel as primarily a moral warning.
- It should connect the story’s suffering/tragedy to scientific overreach or crossing moral boundaries.
In other words: Does the quote frame the novel mainly as condemning reckless scientific ambition? If yes, it challenges the underlined claim.
Evaluate the choices for direct opposition
Compare each option to the underlined claim:
- A describes scientific curiosity as exhilarating and morally ambiguous—this emphasizes complexity and wonder, not a primarily condemning stance.
- B highlights knowledge enlarging sympathy—this is broadly positive about learning and human capacity.
- D says Shelley leaves ethical conclusions open rather than preaching against experimentation—this undercuts the idea of a primary condemnation.
- C says every tragedy results from Victor’s refusal to respect moral boundaries in scientific inquiry—this directly frames the novel as a condemnation of scientific hubris.
Therefore, the best challenge is:
“Shelley’s narrative frames every tragedy as the inevitable result of Victor Frankenstein’s refusal to respect the moral boundaries of scientific inquiry.”