Allegory, satire and archetype

The content defines allegory as a system, not a single symbol, requiring a consistent mapping sustained across the entire text.

The farm story would only be allegorical if its characters and events consistently correspond to real historical figures and events throughout, not just once.

The choice “A sustained one-to-one mapping links characters and events to a specific real-world revolution throughout the whole narrative” describes exactly this sustained, whole-text mapping, which is the defining mechanic of allegory.

B is correct because it names the structural feature that distinguishes allegory from an isolated symbol.

Vivid description makes characters feel real but has nothing to do with a hidden second meaning or mapping.

Mimicking speech patterns occasionally is a stylistic choice, not evidence of a sustained allegorical structure.

A character vanishing early actually weakens any claim of sustained mapping across the whole narrative.

Only the sustained one-to-one mapping option matches the definition of allegory given in the content.

Irony works by exposing a gap between what is claimed and what is actually true or done.

The minister claims transparency while secretly hiding documents, which is precisely a gap between stated claim and reality.

This gap lets the audience judge the minister's hypocrisy without the author stating it directly.

C names irony correctly as the weapon exposing the contradiction.

The scenario shows a contradiction, not an exaggerated claim stretched beyond realism.

There is no mention of copying a specific real speech's format, which parody requires.

The minister is not described as blamed disproportionately, so scapegoat does not fit; this is not an archetype question anyway.

The remaining and correct answer is irony, since it precisely names the claim-versus-reality gap.