Q12 - Purebred dogs are prone

[kimjy89]

I don't really understand how A can be the answer. Even if most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general well-being, it doesn't mean the owners will have to pay for the medical bill for the surgery to correct the abnormality.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Even if most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general well-being, it doesn't mean the owners will have to pay for the medical bill for the surgery to correct the abnormality.

I think you mean to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that even if most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do seriously affect a dog's general well-being, it doesn't mean that owners will have to pay for the medical bill for surgery to correct the abnormality.

True, but the conclusion does rest on that assumption, which is what we're being asked to weaken.

Here's the argument
Purebred dogs are prone to genetic abnormalities. Therefore, to save money avoid purebred dogs.

The assumption of this argument is that owners of purebred dogs will need to correct those abnormalities with surgery. To weaken this argument simply attack the assumption by saying that owners of purebred dogs will not need to correct those abnormalities with surgery. Answer choice (A) allows for owners of purebred dogs to not need to correct those abnormalities with surgery.

(B) is out of scope. The argument is not about nongenetically determined diseases.
(C) is irrelevant. The argument is about incurring medical costs as a result of genetically determined abnormalities - not the average life span of purebred and nonpurebred dogs.
(D) is irrelevant. The argument is about costs incurred for medical expenses - not purchasing the dogs in the first place.
(E) does not undermine the evidence about the likelihood that such dogs will incur genetically determined abnormalities. According to the argument, purebred's are prone to such diseases.

I hope this helps, but I was a little unsure about your question. If I misread what you were asking please let me know!

[cyruswhittaker]

When you say we are attacking the assumption, is the assumption that the abnormalities affect the general well-being of the dog?

I chose A due to elimination and the overall relationship, but I was still hesitant about it.

The argument doesn't seem to explicitly infer this assumption. I guess I would have felt more certain on this choice if the argument specifically referenced well-being in the stimulus, so that a gap in reasoning was formed, hence leading to an unstated assumption.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Actually, I would say that the assumption being made in this argument is something along the lines that if the dogs have genetic abnormalities that the owners will end up spending money to correct those abnormalities.

To attack that assumption, we could find an answer choice that shows why the owners of such dogs will not need to shell out the big bucks to have those abnormalities addressed. As answer choice (A) suggests, the abnormalities aren't serious enough to warrant spending the money to correct them.

Another thing to point out is that assumptions are never explicit. By definition assumptions are unstated.

Does that clear it up?

[kimjy89]

Thank you. I was confused about "well-being" too. I think what I meant to ask was that even if genetically determined abnormalities do not seriously affect a dog's general well-being, the owners would still have to spend money to correct such abnormalities since it does not state in the stimulus that well-being is a criterion by which one decides whether to correct it or not. I guess that is so obvious that we should have taken it to be implicitly stated.

[slimjimsquinn]

I chose E) with a lot of confidence. Looking back, there seems to be other flaws that I missed.

I initially chose E) because it seemed to weaken the alternative (choosing a non-purebred dog). I thought E) was saying: yes, non-purebreds might not have genetic abnormality, but their offspring might have abnormalities which you also have to pay for.


After review, I see now that they do NOT refer to non-purebred dogs in the answer choice E). Just dogs without those genetic abnormalities.

I was assuming non-purebred = no genetic abnormality, when that hasn't really been proven.
Non-purebreds might be prone to abnormalities but, for all we know, so may mixed-breed dogs.

Is this new reasoning right? I was definitely blind-sighted by this question. I'd appreciate the help! Thanks!

[zaidjawed]

I seem to be a bit uncomfortable with "most". Doesn't "most" leave a large window where, for example, 51% of all genetic abnormalities may not require an owner to spend on surgery, however, the 49% of these genetic abnormalities may indeed require some sort of expensive surgery? Who's to say where we fall in this window?

I did choose A) for this question but I just dont feel right about it.

Guys, I would be greatly appreciative if anyone could help me with my reasoning.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I seem to be a bit uncomfortable with "most". Doesn't "most" leave a large window where, for example, 51% of all genetic abnormalities may not require an owner to spend on surgery, however, the 49% of these genetic abnormalities may indeed require some sort of expensive surgery? Who's to say where we fall in this window?

I can see your issue with answer choice (A). The answer is found in the task of the question. We're not asked to completely disprove the conclusion, but to make it less likely to be true. If most genetic abnormalities do not affect a dog's general well-being it does make it less likely that owners would reduce their chance of incurring costly medical bills.

Remember on Strengthen/Weaken questions we do not need to completely disprove or completely prove the conclusion, we just need to make it a bit more likely to be true.

My own personal rule of thumb (though there are always room for exceptions) is that "some" statements generally don't strengthen/weaken arguments, whereas "most" statements do.

[zaidjawed]

Matt,
Thank you so much. That does it for me.

[dean.won]

The explanation for c being wrong seems a bit too simple

I chose c because i assumed since purebreds live a shorter life their medical bills would be lower than nonpurebreds.. whats wrong with my reasoning?

[sumukh09]

I chose E) with a lot of confidence. Looking back, there seems to be other flaws that I missed.

I initially chose E) because it seemed to weaken the alternative (choosing a non-purebred dog). I thought E) was saying: yes, non-purebreds might not have genetic abnormality, but their offspring might have abnormalities which you also have to pay for.


After review, I see now that they do NOT refer to non-purebred dogs in the answer choice E). Just dogs without those genetic abnormalities.

I was assuming non-purebred = no genetic abnormality, when that hasn't really been proven.
Non-purebreds might be prone to abnormalities but, for all we know, so may mixed-breed dogs.

Is this new reasoning right? I was definitely blind-sighted by this question. I'd appreciate the help! Thanks!

I chose E for exactly the same reason. Eliminated A because I wasn't sure how not having a serious affect on an animal's well being meant that they would be less likely to have surgery and thus avoid incurring the significant cost.

Is the explanation for why E is wrong given above correct?

[patrice.antoine]

(E) does not undermine the evidence about the likelihood that such dogs will incur genetically determined abnormalities. According to the argument, purebred's are prone to such diseases.

Matt, please elaborate on this AC. I, like others, also incorrectly chose (E). Looking back now, I realize it still doesn't weaken the conclusion to 'choose non-pure bred dogs because of less incurred costs' as the stim does not equate non-pure bred with not having genetically determined abnormalities. It just says it is RARE in them.

Would still love your elaboration on this, though. Thanks!

[bixbee]

I'll take a stab at explaining why (E) is incorrect-feedback welcome!

(E) is incorrect because it requires you to make the additional (and arguably out-of-scope) assumption that the hypothetical dog in question who does not have genetically determined abnormalities WOULD have offspring, or at least would very likely have offspring. The subsequent assumption is that those offspring could incur additional medical bills due to the potential for them to have genetically determined abnormalities.

Who says the dog will have offspring? What if the dog, like many dogs, is spayed/neutered and incapable of having offspring? What if the dog is not spayed/neutered but the owners are responsible and ensure that their dog doesn't accidentally (or intentionally) breed? If there are no offspring, this answer doesn't weaken the argument at all because it's completely irrelevant.

In my opinion, to argue that (E) weakens the argument's conclusion that dog owners who want to reduce their risk of expensive medical bills should pick nonpurebred dogs requires a significant jump beyond the reasoning provided in the argument. While correct answers to strengthen/weaken questions aren't always as directly related to the argument core as assumption questions, this one is just too much of a stretch.

[jones.mchandler]

To attack that assumption, we could find an answer choice that shows why the owners of such dogs will not need to shell out the big bucks to have those abnormalities addressed. As answer choice (A) suggests, the abnormalities aren't serious enough to warrant spending the money to correct them.

I'm not sure how answer choice A suggests that the "abnormalities aren't serious enough to warrant spending the money on them."

I think that's what the correct answer ought to say, or imply, but it seems like a stretch to suggest that A provides us with that answer.

Could a dog have costly medical bills, yet still have a "good" level of well being? It seems plausible. Does a dog's general well being and his or her medical bills exist in an inverse relationship, such that as medical bills increase, well-being necessarily decreases? It just seems difficult to accept that as fact.

[maryadkins]

I'm with you. I think Matt stretched (A) a bit to make a point, but his point still holds"”of the five answers, (A) is the best weakener regardless of having to make this extra inference. Do you see that? That's what's important.

[jones.mchandler]

I'm with you. I think Matt stretched (A) a bit to make a point, but his point still holds"”of the five answers, (A) is the best weakener regardless of having to make this extra inference. Do you see that? That's what's important.

Yeah, I see it. I think the first part of what I quoted above highlights the assumption that needs to be exploited.

Because most abnormalities do not seriously affect a dog's general well-being, those dogs may not need the expensive surgeries and such.

[WaltGrace1983]

PB dogs are prone to genetic abnormalities, expensive to fix
+
~PB dogs rarely suffer from genetic abnormalities
-->
If you want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills, choose a ~PB dog

This argument has a pretty weak conclusion. It is not saying that ~PB dogs are inexpensive in medical bills - it is just saying that these dogs are LESS expensive than PB dogs in terms of medical bills. What is the assumption?

We know that the correct answer choice is going to be focusing on something medical, because it is explicitly talking about "costly medical bills" rather than general expense. Thus, I thought the assumption would have something to do with the alternative ways of incurring medical bills. Maybe ~PB dogs all have some rare skin disease that costs a ton of money to fix?

In addition, I think I am noticing a trend in which when the question says "MOST seriously weakens," it is typically a bit softer.

(B) This would actually strengthen a tiny bit, to me. If everything else is equal and we know that both PB and ~PB are subject to the same diseases, then maybe ~PB is cheaper because PB are also subject to the genetic abnormalities as the argument stated.

(C) Shorter life span? Completely irrelevant.

(D) Purchase price absolutely doesn't matter. Stick to the core: we are only talking about medical bills.

(E) I don't think "offspring" really matters here: are they under the umbrella of "pet?" I am not really sure. Either way, this also isn't distinguishing between PB / ~PB so that is a bit troubling too.

(A) I initially got rid of this but was left with no more answers. (A) isn't the best weakener BUT it does provide a reason why we shouldn't be too worried about having genetic abnormalities in terms of medical bills: they don't affect the well-being of the dogs too much. We can take this in one of two ways: (1) they don't cause any more need for surgery/medicine/etc. because they don't affect well-being; (2) they are not serious enough to warrant fishing out a lot of money to fix.

Either way, (A) isn't that great of a weakener - I was looking for something much more simple - but it gets the job done because the rest of the answer choices suck.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Argument:

Premise one: Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities that can be corrected via surgery which costs a fortune.
Premise two: Nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from such abnormalities.

Conclusion: Potential dog owners should get nonpurebred dogs if they want to reduce their risk of incurring exorbitant medical fees.

Gaps:
- It is necessary to have the abnormalities corrected if they occur. While they may not be not aesthetically pleasing, perhaps genetic abnormalities are benign.
- Owners of the purebred dogs pay to have the abnormalities corrected, perhaps they're sadistic as fuck and don't care about their animals.
- Nonpurebred dogs are not prone to non-genetically determined abnormalities that cost a lot of correct.


(A) Hmm, this corresponds nicely with one of the gaps we identified, keep for now.
(B) Ok cool, but this does nothing to our argument. This just tells us that both dogs are equally prone to nongenetically determined diseases.
(C) This is tempting and invites us to make the unwarranted presumption that since purebred dogs on average die sooner than nonpurebred dogs that it is not necessary to buy nonpurebred dogs to reduce the risk of paying high medical costs because presumably since purebred dogs die sooner you'll end up paying a relatively lower sum on money on medical costs. Two problems with this: (1) we don't know how sooner they die before nonpurebred dogs. (2) Just because they die sooner doesn't mean you're any less likely to spend exorbitant amounts on medical care. Maybe for the short time that they live, you'll have spent a large sum correcting surgery or any other medical costs. Eliminate.
(D) We don't care about the purchase price of the dogs, but whether or not purchasing a nonpurebred dog would reduce the risk of incurring medical costs, eliminate.
(E) But we don't know what kind of dog, the dog in question is. If the dog is a nonpurebred then this answer choice would require the presumption that the owners would take care or adopt the offspring, we don't know. If the dog were purebred, this would if we presumed the same thing it would strengthen. This answer choice requires too much conjecture as it doesn't give us enough info to work with, eliminate.

(A) is really the only one that comes close, it doesn't destroy the argument but weakens it ever so slightly. If the genetically determined abnormalities don't affect well-being of the pets then presumably it's not necessary to pay for them to be corrected. Therefore, you can own purebred dogs without incurring medical costs.

[daiqiuyang]

If the reasoning for choosing (A), according to Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, is:

genetically determined abnormalities do no serious affect PB dogs well-being → no need for pills/surgery → PB dog owners don't need to spend more money → not necessary to choose non-PB dogs in order to avoid incurring cost → conclusion weakened

then why can't we draw the following inference from (B):

PB and non-PB dogs are both likely to have non-genetically determined disease → both PB and non-PB dogs are likely to require surgery/pills → owners of both PB and non-PB dogs are likely to experience costs → choosing non-PB dogs might not reduce costs comparing to have a PB dog → conclusion weakened


Among the many logic gaps in the inference for (B) is that we don't know if having non-genetically determined disease would require costly pills/surgery. But similar logic gaps exist in the reasoning for choosing (A): the fact that genetically determined abnormalities do no serious affect PB dogs well-being does not exclude the possibility that such abnormalities still require pills/surgery, which might be costly.


Any idea?

[lunazhuyu]

If the reasoning for choosing (A), according to Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, is:

genetically determined abnormalities do no serious affect PB dogs well-being → no need for pills/surgery → PB dog owners don't need to spend more money → not necessary to choose non-PB dogs in order to avoid incurring cost → conclusion weakened

then why can't we draw the following inference from (B):

PB and non-PB dogs are both likely to have non-genetically determined disease → both PB and non-PB dogs are likely to require surgery/pills → owners of both PB and non-PB dogs are likely to experience costs → choosing non-PB dogs might not reduce costs comparing to have a PB dog → conclusion weakened


Among the many logic gaps in the inference for (B) is that we don't know if having non-genetically determined disease would require costly pills/surgery. But similar logic gaps exist in the reasoning for choosing (A): the fact that genetically determined abnormalities do no serious affect PB dogs well-being does not exclude the possibility that such abnormalities still require pills/surgery, which might be costly.


Any idea?

Hi daiqiuyang, thank you for your post concerning the answer B, I was also confused about answer B, but I think I can provide an explanation to your logic chain out there. Actually I think B kinda strengthen the argument. Let's assume the non-genetic diseases need to be treated, which means they will result in adding more medical bills. Then since PB and non-PB has the same non-genetic diseases, concerning the non-genetic diseases cost they are same. However, the extra cost of PB (resulted from their genetic diseases) will make their bills scarier. So for potential dog owners who want to avoid costly bills they should not choose PB.

However, A assumes that these genetic diseases are probably not needed to be treated, thus allowing the possibility that PB owners may not need to pay extra money. Thus, A weakens the argument.