#14 - Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus provides the following basic argument:

Premise: pedigree standards consider only physical appearance, and nothing about genetic traits, including certain work-based traits which might be lost without specific focus from breeders.

Subsidiary conclusion: Thus, traits like herding ability may be lost.

Conclusion: Therefore, standards should require working ability in working dogs.

The question asks for the function served by the phrase "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs." This is a secondary, or subsidiary conclusion. It is a conclusion based on the premise outlined above, and is also a premise which provides support for the main conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (A) It is a claim on which the argument depends, but the stimulus does provide support for this claim.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The phrase is a subsidiary conclusion which provides support for the main conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (C) The quoted phrase lends support to the argument's proposal; it does not acknowledge a possible objection.

Answer choice (D) Again, the quoted phrase provides support for the main conclusion, so this cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E) The phrase provides support for the main conclusion, which is stated later in the argument.

[egarcia193]

Hi,

Whats the difference between B and E I got this correct and chose B with not too much difficulty, but E definitely made me second guess myself. I knew that the phrase was a sub conclusion in support of the main conclusion and E kind of sounded like it was saying the same thing but I thought it was closer to describing a type of premise than a sub conclusion. I know that a sub conclusion in itself basically acts like a premise to the main conclusion so I think that's why E made me second guess myself but could you further explain the difference between them?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi E,

The confusion here probably occurred precisely because of the point you made: a sub-conclusion is used as a premise for another conclusion (typically the main conclusion). So, the sub-conclusion plays multiple roles in the argument. that's not an unusual role at all for an idea to play (think of a necessary condition that is also sufficient for another condition, such as the role B plays in this chain: A B C).

I tend to think of sub-conclusions as middle floors of a building. The assumptions are like the foundation and basement floors—hidden but underpinning all parts the building. The first few floors are the premises—the base support of the building. Those then lead to any mid-level floors, which are conclusions based on the floors underneath, but they also serve as support for the top floors, which is where the main conclusion resides.

Here's an example:

• Main Conclusion = The Dodgers will win the World Series.
  |
  Premise/Subconclusion = The dodgers have the best pitching staff in baseball
  |
  Base Premise = Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers is the best pitcher in baseball.

Lots of assumptions there, but still you can see how one idea leads to another, which then leads to a broader, main idea.

If you apply some of these idea to the argument in question (as described in the explanation above), you can see these different roles in action. Please let me know if that helps, thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. I got this question correct, but i saw this as strengthen-Principle. I do not understand why it is method of reasoning

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Lathlee,

You may be looking at number 13 from this same section. Questions 13 and 14 addressed the same stimulus, so the discussion of this question may seem similar to what you are looking for.

You can find the discussion of number 13 here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=9378

[lathlee]

No. I am just letting you know. i got this question from one of the lesson books of 1000 package deal that Powerscore sells

[elizabeth]

Dear Powerscore,

I am confused as to how "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" is the subsidiary conclusion. To me, "Since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and those traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost" seems more like the subsidiary conclusion and the evidence that herding ability risks being lost acts as the evidence necessary to support the earlier stated claim. That is why I chose E instead of B.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Elizabeth,

Good question!

To me, "Since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and those traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost" seems more like the subsidiary conclusion and the evidence that herding ability risks being lost acts as the evidence necessary to support the earlier stated claim.

Check out that word at the beginning of the quoted statement: "since"

"Since" is a definite premise indicator word. What follows the word "since" will very likely be a statement that supports something else. Absolutely a statement following "since" could be a subsidiary conclusion, if it is then used to support the main conclusion, but let's see what statement the "since" statement supports here:

• What happens because breeders act a certain way? What happens is that certain traits risk being lost.

Thus the statement about "certain traits being lost," the statement this LR question asks about, is supported by that "since" statement. In other words, the statement about "certain traits being lost" is definitely a conclusion. Now we ask whether it is the main conclusion. No it is not. The main conclusion is in the following line, which begins with a conclusion indicator word, "therefore."

Good reasoning here. I hope this helps!

[blaisebayno]

What is the substantive difference between evidence supporting a conclusion and a sub conclusion? Seems extremely arbitrary and certainly contestable.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

HI blaisebayno,

The difference is in that critical word "conclusion." Evidence supporting a claim is just that---evidence. It's support. A premise. A subsidiary conclusion can include evidence supporting a claim. But it's more than just that. It also is a conclusion and is itself supported by other premises.

In this case, the "certain traits might be lost" is both a premise, supporting the ultimate conclusion that the pedigree organization should set standards for working breeds, and a conclusion, supported by the information that pedigree organizations only focus on the physical appearance of breeds. The statement is not just a premise nor just a conclusion. It's a hybrid of both uses.

Hope that helps!