Trainer: Research shows that when

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Flaw2% picked this

   It fails to state exactly what percentage of dogs neutered in early puppyhood experience

   If it's "usually" the case that they neutering during early puppyhood results in improper bone development, then it's over 50% of the time. That's informative enough to be compelling. Reasoning flaws never have to do with the lack of a scientific definition, of an exact measurement, or of named sources.

   2%
2. B

   Not a Flaw2% picked this

   It fails to explain the connection between improper bone development

   Since we trust the premises, when we're evaluating reasoning, we don't need to have the connection explained to us. We grant the author that improper bone development leads to arthritis. She still can't derive the conclusion she thought she could derive. Those of us with some outside knowledge of what arthritis is can probably fill in the blank with a reasonable conception of how it relates to improper bone development, but the more important idea is that when analyzing an argument, you don't need the author to defend the truth of her premises. If she says, "Whenever Patrick hears the song 'Y.M.C.A', he starts crying", we take that rule as a given, and we don't need the author to explain the sordid backstory of why Patrick cries when he hears that song.

   2%
3. C

   Correct51% picked this

   It fails to address the effects of neutering in middle or

   Why this is right

   I'll be honest — I did a double-take when I saw an LSAT answer choice splitting hairs and talking about middle / late puppyhood. I didn't realize there were three trimesters to puppyhood. Nevertheless, this finds the overlooked middle-ground of the author's False Choice. Her correct conclusion would have been "don't neuter during early puppyhood", and her actual conclusion was "don't neuter until full-grown". The wiggle room in her logic is that there might be a stage between early puppyhood and full-grown where it's safe to neuter your dog, without worries that it will lead to improper bone development and arthritis.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   51%
4. D

   Out of Scope15% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that the benefits of neutering a dog early might outweigh

   Had the conclusion been something normative and generalized like, "You shouldn't neuter your dog in early puppyhood", then we would need to consider all the pro's and con's of doing so and weigh them against each other. However, since her conclusion is simply predicated on "if you want to avoid arthritis ...", then we only need to think about the causal chain she presented that leads to arthritis. Suppose I say, "If you want to be cold as little as possible, you should go to University of Miami law school". I'm not saying that University of Miami is the best law school or that people should generally try to go there. I'm just saying, "If your criterion for decision-making is avoiding being cold, then this is the action you would take".

   15%
5. E

   Not an Objection30% picked this

   It fails to consider the possibility that dogs with properly developed bones

   The author isn't presenting her advice as a guarantee that your dog avoids arthritis. If I say that drinking arsenic will kill you and then conclude, "So if you don't want to die, don't drink arsenic", I'm not failing to consider that "some people who don't drink arsenic will still die".

   30%