Q22 - Trainer: Research shows that

[richard.j.won]

Hi,

Can someone explain exactly why (C) is the right answer? The conclusion addresses not neutering dogs until they are full-grown, so I can see why the answer should address neutering and full-grown, but I'm not seeing why failing to address effects of neutering in middle or late puppyhood is a flaw. To me it seems that if a dog with properly developed bones can still develop arthritis (E), then that is a bigger flaw because the conclusion is about wanting to protect dogs from arthritis, which in (E) is not the case.

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This argument relies on subtlety and our brain's natural associations. The conclusion of the argument is that to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown. The evidence for this is that neutering dogs in early puppyhood can lead to arthritis.

It's tough to discern a major problem with this argument. Maybe you suspect mistaking correlation vs. casuation, but causation is implied by the evidence. The flaw here is that of "false choice." But because of natural associations we're likely to make, it's tough to see the alternative option. "Early puppyhood" sounds like it's the early part of a dog's life. But that's not exactly it


Early Puppyhood ... Later Puppyhood || Adulthood.....................

This argument fails to consider the possibility that dogs could be neutered later in puppyhood and we need not wait until adulthood to neuter the dog. That leads to answer choice (C).

(A) is not a flaw with this argument. Why should it be required to state such an exact percentage? "Usually" is significant enough.
(B) is true but not a flaw. The evidence does state that a causal relationship exists. Further explication is unnecessary.
(D) is irrelevant. The conclusion does not claim that neutering is beneficial for a dog overall. But restricts it's conclusion to the relationship between when one neuters a dog and the likelihood of developing arthritis.
(E) is true but not a flaw. The argument never concluded nor assumed that only dogs with improper development would develop arthritis.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have a question on this one!

[jamiejames]

This argument relies on subtlety and our brain's natural associations. The conclusion of the argument is that to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown. The evidence for this is that neutering dogs in early puppyhood can lead to arthritis.

It's tough to discern a major problem with this argument. Maybe you suspect mistaking correlation vs. casuation, but causation is implied by the evidence. The flaw here is that of "false choice." But because of natural associations we're likely to make, it's tough to see the alternative option. "Early puppyhood" sounds like it's the early part of a dog's life. But that's not exactly it


Early Puppyhood ... Later Puppyhood || Adulthood.....................

This argument fails to consider the possibility that dogs could be neutered later in puppyhood and we need not wait until adulthood to neuter the dog. That leads to answer choice (C).

(A) is not a flaw with this argument. Why should it be required to state such an exact percentage? "Usually" is significant enough.
(B) is true but not a flaw. The evidence does state that a causal relationship exists. Further explication is unnecessary.
(D) is irrelevant. The conclusion does not claim that neutering is beneficial for a dog overall. But restricts it's conclusion to the relationship between when one neuters a dog and the likelihood of developing arthritis.
(E) is true but not a flaw. The argument never concluded nor assumed that only dogs with improper development would develop arthritis.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you still have a question on this one!

I need a little help understanding why D is wrong.

I figured the benefit of not neutering a dog early was decreasing the chances of arthritis, but that there may be worse things than arthritis in the future that may develop stemming from not neutering the dog earlier.

[timmydoeslsat]

I need a little help understanding why D is wrong.

I figured the benefit of not neutering a dog early was decreasing the chances of arthritis, but that there may be worse things than arthritis in the future that may develop stemming from not neutering the dog earlier.

The way in which the conclusion is phrased protects it from that criticism. The conclusion states "if you want to protect your dog from arthritis...."

So while it may true that there may be worse things than arthritis, and that is why one would go ahead and do the neutering, that has no effect on the conclusion.

Analogous argument:

Research shows that when kids play football in early childhood, their bones are at risk of breaking later in life. Thus, if you want to protect your child from bones breaking later in life, you should wait for them to play football until they are not in childhood.


Answer choice D to this argument would state: Fails to consider the possibility of a child playing football early outweighs the risk of breaking bones later in life.


And, as you can see, the conclusion is not strong enough to warrant that level of criticism. The conclusion is "if you want to protect your child from bones breaking later in life..."


In the original argument, and the analogous one, the issue is the shift from early X and X entirely.

In the analogous argument, we are not shown whether the risk of bones breaking later in life applies to those in mid to late childhood. Since that has not been shown in the argument, we do not have the logical ability to state ~Childhood.

[dukeag]

What a tough question! Who knew there was such a thing as "early puppyhood" and "middle puppyhood." In my mind these stages all existed in a simple, single stage known as "puppy stage."

I picked E, but let me see and strongly considered D, but let me see if I can work out why these answers are wrong and why C is right. I am writing this to mostly help myself out, but hopefully whatever I write will be helpful to someone else too. I don't want to be a waste of internet space

Conclusion: If you want to protect your dog from arthritis, you should not neuter your dog until it is full grown.

I think the reason why I got D and E wrong is because I misunderstood what the conclusion was trying to say.

D: Note the conclusion does not say : "If you want to protect your dog from every disease out there and be the the most healthy and have all the benefits in the world, then you should not neuter your dog when it is a puppy." No, the conclusion is simply saying that if you want to protect your dog from arthritis, then you should not do X. So D is wrong because the author is not saying that you should not neuter your dog when it's a puppy because there are no benefits to neutering a dog early. It's a simple conditional argument: If you want to protect your dog from arthritis, don't do something which can increase its risk for arthritis.

E: Notice the conclusion does not say: If you do X, your dog will completely safe from arthritis (mistaken reversal?). Nor does it say: If you want to protect your dog completely and 100 percent from arthritis, then you must do X. You can aim to try to protect yourself from something but at the same time consider the possibility that you are not 100 percent protected. For example, I may not walk down a certain alleyway by myself in order to protect myself from getting robbed. But that does not mean that in doing so I have failed to consider the possibility of getting robbed in another way(for ex., someone could try to steal something from me in a subway when I am not looking). The conclusion just simply gives one method for which to protect your dog from arthritis. It does not necessarily exclude other methods which may be necessary for protecting your dog from arthritis.

C: Is the correct answer because the research focused only on the effects of neutering in the early stage of puppyhood, not the effects on the later stages of puppyhood or teenagehood...or any stage before the "fully grown" stage. So even if the premises are true, the conclusion does not automatically follow. In other words, what if the effects of neutering in the later stages of puppyhood do not include improper bone development or anything which leads to arthritis? Then the conclusion that you should wait until your dog is fully-grown before neutering does not necessarily follow.