Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q22 Trainer: Research shows that when

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Trainer: Research shows that when dogs are neutered in early puppyhood, their leg bones usually do not develop properly.

Conclusion

If you want to protect your dog from arthritis, don't neuter it until it's full grown.

Evidence

If you neuter a dog in early puppyhood, its legs bones usually don't develop properly. Improper bones lead to arthritis when the dog is older.

Evaluation

The author is laying out a causal chain and then trying to conclude, .

Neuter early puppy → bad bones → arthritis

Her conclusion, though, should read

So the flaw in the argument is the gap between the correctly drawn advice, "don't neuter them in early puppyhood" and the erroneously drawn conclusion, "don't neuter them until it is full-grown"

Goal

The author seems to present a False Choice: you'd either have to neuter you dog in early puppyhood or wait until it's full-grown. What if there's some middle ground there, like adolescence?

22.

Of the following, which one is a criticism to which the reasoning in the trainer's argument is most vulnerable?

  1. It fails to state exactly

    Not a Flaw

    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% picked this

  2. It fails to explain the

    Not a Flaw

    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% picked this

  3. Correct

    It fails to address the

    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.

    50% picked this

  4. It fails to consider the

    Out of Scope

    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% picked this

  5. It fails to consider the

    Not an Objection

    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".

    31% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free