#22 - Trainer: Research shows that when dogs are neutered in

[sdb606]

This isn't an argument about completely eliminating all cases of arthritis, but one about reducing the risk,

The stimulus language suggests it very much is about eliminating risk. It says, "if you want to protect your dog from arthritis..." Protect is synonymous with Prevent which means 0% risk of arthritis. I wouldn't buy a rain coat with a label that says, "Will protect you from the rain but expect 20% of the water to seep through the coat." Therefore, if full-grown dogs are getting arthritis, you're not protecting them from arthritis by neutering when they're fully grown because they're getting arthritis anyway.

If "Protect" is about reducing risk, I can see how E is wrong. Is it unreasonable to assume "Protect" means 100% and not just less? Would anyone still agree that something would fit the definition of protection if it reduced risk by 0.01%?

I understand how C is right but still don't see what's wrong with E.

[sdb606]

Actually, I think I understand now. The author never says that there is only one cause of arthritis. You can still believe that protection means 100% because the author saying that neutering when fully grown completely protects against arthritis caused by neutering early but not necessarily against arthritis caused by other things (bad genes, etc.). Therefore, it's ok if fully-grown dogs get arthritis because it's outside the scope of the argument.

[Adam Tyson]

Right! To put it in LSAT logic terms, the author thinks neutering later is necessary to prevent arthritis, but that doesn't mean they believe it is sufficient. You might need a raincoat, but that doesn't mean you don't also need an umbrella to stay completely dry!

[daj321]

Right! To put it in LSAT logic terms, the author thinks neutering later is necessary to prevent arthritis, but that doesn't mean they believe it is sufficient. You might need a raincoat, but that doesn't mean you don't also need an umbrella to stay completely dry!

I'm still confused about why E is incorrect, even if we are talking about reducing risk. We have no information about the risk of arthritis in dogs with properly developed bones. It says "can develop arthritis" so I assume this is anywhere 1%-100%, but the stimulus also says that dogs neutered in early puppyhood "usually" have bones that do not develop properly. There is no clear way to quantify/compare these 2 risks then. I would agree that E is wrong if the stimulus said "if you want to protect your dog from arthritis caused by improper bone development..." But I feel that to actually "protect" against something, the thing you choose has to lower the risk when compared to the alternative.

Here's an example of what I am thinking. Mark is a in room with no food and could die if he doesn't get food soon. Someone passes a poisoned apple into the room. If Mark eats the apple, he will likely die. Then in order to protect Mark from dying, you should stop him from eating the poisoned apple. The issue is that I don't see that this is actually protecting Mark from dying, when the alternative is also a probability of death (and we don't know which probability is more likely." I can see that not letting him eat the apple is protecting him from "death by apple" or even "a sooner death" but not by "death" broadly speaking.

I agree with your previous reply that even if trainer addresses the concerns in E, C would still be an issue. But isn't it the case that if he addresses the problem in C, E would nevertheless still be an issue?

[daj321]

Right! To put it in LSAT logic terms, the author thinks neutering later is necessary to prevent arthritis, but that doesn't mean they believe it is sufficient. You might need a raincoat, but that doesn't mean you don't also need an umbrella to stay completely dry!

I'm still confused about why E is incorrect, even if we are talking about reducing risk. We have no information about the risk of arthritis in dogs with properly developed bones. It says "can develop arthritis" so I assume this is anywhere 1%-100%, but the stimulus also says that dogs neutered in early puppyhood "usually" have bones that do not develop properly. There is no clear way to quantify/compare these 2 risks then. I would agree that E is wrong if the stimulus said "if you want to protect your dog from arthritis caused by improper bone development..." But I feel that to actually "protect" against something, the thing you choose has to lower the risk when compared to the alternative.

Here's an example of what I am thinking. Mark is a in room with no food and could die if he doesn't get food soon. Someone passes a poisoned apple into the room. If Mark eats the apple, he will likely die. Then in order to protect Mark from dying, you should stop him from eating the poisoned apple. The issue is that I don't see that this is actually protecting Mark from dying, when the alternative is also a probability of death (and we don't know which probability is more likely." I can see that not letting him eat the apple is protecting him from "death by apple" or even "a sooner death" but not by "death" broadly speaking.

I agree with your previous reply that even if trainer addresses the concerns in E, C would still be an issue. But isn't it the case that if he addresses the problem in C, E would nevertheless still be an issue?

Or is the key thing that the risk of "usually" > "can"?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi daj,

When the stimulus states, "improper bone development leads in turn to problems with arthritis as dogs grow older," it's essentially saying that improper bone development will (eventually) cause arthritis in dogs. If you want to protect your dogs from arthritis, it makes sense that you would avoid doing something that would cause arthritis. Of course, a dog could get arthritis anyway because it's probably impossible to 100% protect against anything, but if you're trying to protect your dog, you would take what steps you can to reduce the risk.

Here's a similar argument.

Smoking cigarettes (often) leads to lung cancer in later life. If I want to protect myself from getting lung cancer, then I shouldn't smoke cigarettes. Of course, I could still get lung cancer, but not smoking would help protect against getting lung cancer.