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

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

The conclusion presented in the stimulus is that owners who wish to protect their dogs from arthritis
should not neuter them until they are full-grown. This conclusion is based on the premise that neutering
dogs early in puppyhood usually inhibits bone development, which leads to arthritis.

In this argument, the author makes the unjustified leap from “early in puppyhood” to “full grown.” The
more proper conclusion would be that, to protect their dogs from arthritis, owners should not neuter their
dogs in early puppyhood. This does not necessarily mean waiting until full adulthood. The argument also
assumes that neutering dogs early in puppyhood does not bring some detriment (with respect to arthritis)
that may outweigh the associated benefits.

Answer choice (A): “Usually” is enough to determine whether a probability is in one’s favor, so the
failure to state exact percentages is irrelevant, and this choice does not describe a flaw. The exact
percentages could establish exactly how imperative an action is, but would not change the general
observation that the action should be taken.

Answer choice (B): The author does not need to explain why improper bone development leads to
arthritis, so this choice is wrong. This choice incorrectly requires a premise that does not need to be
established.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The argument leaps from a premise about
“early puppyhood” to arrive at a conclusion about “full-grown,” dogs, and never considered whether
neutering sometime between early puppyhood and adulthood was acceptable.

Answer choice (D): This is a very popular answer choice among test takers, because the possibility
discussed might lead one to argue for early neutering. By dealing with the totality of benefits, this
answer choice goes beyond the scope of the argument, which only deals with arthritic concerns. The author’s argument does not address overall health, so to ignore overall health is not a flaw.

Answer choice (E): Since the argument only concerns the avoidance of risk incurred by impeding bone
development, the continued existence of some lesser risk would have no effect on the strength of the
argument. Ignoring this possibility is not a flaw.

[amna.ali467]

I know.. I've posted one too many times on this forum today! Apologies.

For this question, I ruled out all the answer choices easily and was left with C and D. I picked D and am not sure as to why C is correct.


Thanks! You're the bestest!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi amna.ali467,

Thanks for your question. It would be tremendously helpful if you can provide a bit more information as to how you approached this problem. Did you break the argument down? What is the conclusion (if any), and how well is it supported by the premises? Did you prephrase an answer to the question? What specifically made both (C) and (D) attractive?

The more insight you can give us into your line of reasoning, the better we can help you out.

Thanks!

[amna.ali467]

(C) is attractive to me because because if you look at conditional reasoning and the contrapositive, then the effects of neutering in middle or late puppyhood are not addressed.

(D) I picked this answer choice because it reminded me of a past question that argued that people should stop taking a certain medicine because it produces bad side effects, but then never discusses what would happen if people stopped taking the medicine. They might die so perhaps the benefits of taking the medicine outweigh the risks of not taking the medicine.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi amna.ali467,

I wouldn't necessarily approach this as a conditional reasoning argument. The reasoning is clearly causal ("leads to"), not conditional:

Neuter in early puppyhood (cause) Bones don't develop well (effect/cause) Arthritis

The problem lies with the conclusion: to protect against arthritis, the author recommends that dogs should not be neutered until they are fully grown. But what happens when you neuter the dog when it's fully grown? The effects of this are left unclear, which is why (C) is the correct answer choice.

(D) is tricky. What if the benefits of neutering the dog early outweigh the risk of arthritis? It doesn't matter in this case, because the conclusion is specifically concerned with protecting the dog against arthritis ("if you want to protect your dog against arthritis..."). Since the recommendation is qualified, the author is under no obligation to consider the benefits of neutering the dog early.

Now, if the conclusion stated, "Thus, if you want your dog to be healthier, you should not neuter your dog until it's full-grown" - that would be a different story. In that case, (D) would be just as relevant as (C).

Does that clear things up?

[amna.ali467]

Got it! Yes everything makes sense now.

Thanks a bunch!

[emilysnoddon]

I chose answer choice D for this question. Is this incorrect because the argument is that if you want to protect your dog from arthritis, you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown and therefore the benefits of neutering your dog outweighing the rick of arthritis is irrelevant? In other words the argument says if your main goal is to avoid arthritis you avoid neutering the dog until it is full-grown but does not claim neutering does not have other benefits. Let me know if this is the correct thinking for this answer choice.

Could you also elaborate on answer choice C? I felt as though this might not be relevant.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Emily,

The author concludes that you shouldn't neuter your dog until it's full-grown if you want to protect it from arthritis. As evidence, we have the following causal relationships:

Neutered early Leg bones don't develop properly Arthritis

Alright, if these premises are true, then clearly I shouldn't neuter my puppy if I want to prevent arthritis. However, the author never talked about the effects of neutering a dog later in life. What if that carries a similar consequence? The conclusion isn't merely that you shouldn't neuter your puppy; it is that you should wait until it's full-grown to do that. Answer choice (C) is quite relevant to this consideration, because if true, it would immediately weaken the conclusion.

Whether the benefits of neutering a dog early in life might outweigh the risk of arthritis is irrelevant to this argument. Why? Because the conclusion has a carefully qualified scope: "if you want to protect your dog from arthritis..." The conclusion is not a blanket recommendation, but a qualified one. Consequently, even if there are significant benefits to neutering a dog, they would be irrelevant to the conclusion.

Hope this clears it up! Let me know.

Thanks,

[bk1111]

Hello, can someone explain why E would be incorrect? I don’t fully understand the explaination above.

[Adam Tyson]

Let's consider what difference it might have made if the author had considered whether some dogs with properly developed bones although get arthritis. That might look something like this (starting at the end of the second sentence):

"...although some dogs with properly developed bones also may develop arthritis."

Our author then continues on as originally shown, and concludes that if you want to protect your dog from developing arthritis you should wait until they are fully grown before neutering them. Would the argument be okay now that he has considered the dogs with good bones? Nope - it would still have the same problem of assuming that the only two options for neutering are early puppyhood and fully-grown (and this looks like a False Dilemma to me, btw). This isn't an argument about completely eliminating all cases of arthritis, but one about reducing the risk, so the fact that some dogs may get arthritis anyway doesn't matter very much. As long as there is one known cause for it, eliminating that cause should reduce the effect.

Because the failure to consider that factor doesn't harm the argument any, it's not a flaw, and that eliminates answer E from contention.