Q6 - Citizen: The primary factor determining a dog

[T.J.]

Hey guys,

I was a little puzzled by this question due to the last sentence following "Moreover". My expectation for the conclusion was actually the last sentence, because I thought the author establishes the adequacy of current laws by undermining breed-specific laws. Not until I read the answer choices did I realize that the conclusion is actually the second last sentence. Is my thinking wrong?

[rinagoldfield]

Hey T.J.,

Thanks for your post. You’re right that the second to last sentence is the conclusion. That sentence starts with the conclusion key phrase "as a result." "As a result," like "therefore" and "so," almost always gives us a conclusion.

"Moreover" is more like "in addition." Phrases and words like "moreover," "in addition", and "also" usually give us supporting evidence. They’re the author saying, "hey, this also proves my point!"

Understanding these phrases can help you identify the argument core, but you can also think about the logical flow of the argument. What’s the author really saying here? He’s saying that the new legislation is dumb. Why? Because the new legislation fails to take into account home environment, and the current legislation is fine anyway.

In more concrete terms, the really boiled-down argument core here is:

P: Home environment determines dogs’ behavior rather than breed

C: Breed-specific legislation won’t protect us from vicious dogs.

Answer choice (A) gives us the correct conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[BarryM800]

I understand the stimulus fine, until the last sentence. Before the last sentence, I identified the conclusion as "As a result, such breed-specific legislation could never effectively protect the public from vicious dogs," especially with the conclusion indicator "as a result." However, the next sentence, which is also the last one, states, "Moreover, in my view, the current laws are perfectly adequate." I know "moreover" is a premise indicator to add another premise, but its meaning really threw me off. Where does "current laws" come from? The discussion in the stimulus so far is about breed-specific legislation in general. How does that support the previous sentence, which is the conclusion? The conclusion essentially says that breed-specific legislation is inadequate. The addition of such a new concept does indicate the existence of a "new" legislation, which correlates with the breed-specific legislation at issue. So it sounds like the argument is not over yet, when the last sentence is added. In other words, since there's no overlapping concept/noun between the last two sentences, they should be combined to prove something else. I tend to think it's pointing toward either "the current legislation is not breed-specific" or "we should not replace current laws with a breed-specific legislation." I know none of these thinking proves fruitful in finding a better answer choice than (A), but I lost valuable time contemplating these issues, especially because some LSAT Main Point questions would provide answer choices that are not originally from the stimulus text, but a paraphrased or summarized conclusion. I think my takeaway is that whenever a sentence is confirmed to be a premise, just ignore it, as LSAC will attempt to confuse us with word meaning as its second wave of attack, after we have successfully analyzed the structure of the discourse. But to seek a deeper understanding, can anyone shed lights on the logical link between the last two sentences, while the last premise still supports, rather than changes, the conclusion? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't think of that last sentence as a premise. As you said, for it to be a premise, the conclusion would have to be something broader like "Therefore, we should not alter the current laws by adding breed-specific legislation."

And while you're right that there are a few examples in LSAT history (no recent ones that I can think of) in which we're asked for the Main POINT, not the Main CONCLUSION, this isn't one of those and there isn't any answer choice that looks like the Main Point you and I agree would be appropriate, given that final sentence.

I just saw that "Moreover" as bringing up an irrelevant issue to the rest of the reasoning. I think LSAT was trying to avoid having the last sentence be the Main Conclusion, because that makes it easier to find.

Moreover / Furthermore / Also = should be connecting two things that are on the same level. As Rina said, these would usually be premises.

But in this case, the 2nd to last sentence is the conclusion. It would be pretty weird to have an argument that was like:

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Thus, Conclusion.
Moreover, Exhibit C.

This was just filler. It was connecting two opinions the author has.
- breed-specific legislation can never effectively protect public from vicious dogs
- the current laws are adequate

He supports that first opinion, making it a conclusion.
He doesn't support the second opinion, making it just some loosely connected but unsupported claim.

[BarryM800]

Thanks, Pat! Just a follow-up question, what is the difference between a Main Point question and a question that asks us to find the conclusion, and how do we differentiate them? I thought they were of the same question stem. However, I've seen three sub-categories depending upon the form that the answer choices may take: (1) answer choices come from the stimulus verbatim; (2) answer choices are paraphrases of sentences/information contained in the stimulus; and (3) answer choices are implicit inferences, as opposed to something explicitly stated in the stimulus. Are you referring to these sub-categories in your differentiation?

[ohthatpatrick]

Don't hold me to these categories or percentages rigidly, but I'd say

95% or more of these are just "Which is the conclusion", and the correct answer is a paraphrase of the explicit conclusion.

A handful have asked for the "Main Point", rather than the "main conclusion",
or they've asked for "the conclusion that the argument is structured to establish".

The latter usually featured an implied conclusion, in which the author was disagreeing with someone.

EXAMPLE:
Most people think that New York City is the most expensive place to live. But, San Francisco's real estate costs more per square foot.

implied conclusion: New York City is not the most expensive place to live


Some of the correct answers to Main Point have been weird in that they say
"Conclusion BECAUSE Premise"

It's weird to see the conclusion and the premise in the answer, but these answers have always been the best available (i.e there was not an answer choice that ONLY said the conclusion).