Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT148 S3 Q1 Explanation

Treat training consists of rewarding

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Treat training consists of rewarding dogs with edible treats whenever they respond appropriately to commands. Most dogs will quickly learn what they need to do to receive a treat, so this appears to be an effective training method. However, most dogs who have been treat-trained will not obey commands unless they are you should instead use praise and verbal correction to train your dog.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Conclusion

The author wants you to skip treat training and use praise and correction instead.

Evidence

Why? Because dogs trained with treats only obey when they see one — and you cannot always have a pocket full of treats. Praise and verbal correction, on the other hand, you can always give.

Evaluate

The hidden idea here is that the right training method is the one that uses a reward or signal the owner can always provide. Without that idea, "you cannot always have treats" does not push us toward praise.

Goal

Find a principle that lines up with: train your dog using something you can always give.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
1.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope0% picked this

    The more quickly a dog learns to respond to a stimulus, the more likely it is that the owner will

    This is a principle about owner behavior — owners are more likely to keep using a stimulus their dog learned from quickly. The argument is not about which method owners will keep using; it is about which method owners should use given that treats are not always available. This principle does not justify the recommendation to switch to praise.

  2. Opposite1% picked this

    The more often a dog is given a stimulus, the more likely it is that the dog will obey its owner's command even when

    If frequent exposure to a stimulus makes a dog obey even without that stimulus present, then using treats often would still produce obedience when no treat is shown. That undermines the author's premise that treat-trained dogs will not obey without seeing a treat — and so undermines the case for switching to praise. Strengtheners point the other way.

  3. Too Weak2% picked this

    A dog should be trained by the method that results in a high obedience rate in

    This principle endorses any method that produces a high obedience rate in at least some circumstances. Treat training produces a high obedience rate when treats are present — that easily qualifies as "some circumstances." So this principle would actually approve of treat training, not justify abandoning it for praise.

  4. Correct96% picked this

    A dog should be trained to respond to a stimulus that its owner can supply

    Why this is right

    This is the missing piece. The argument's case against treats is precisely that the owner cannot supply them in all situations. Praise and verbal correction, by contrast, the owner can always supply. So if a dog should be trained on a stimulus the owner can always supply, treats are out and praise is in — exactly the conclusion. This principle bridges the gap between "you cannot always have treats" and "use praise instead."

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

  5. Out of Scope0% picked this

    A dog should not be trained by a method that has not proven to be effective

    This principle requires that a method have proven effective for at least one other dog. The argument concedes that treat training does work to teach dogs commands — so this principle would approve of treat training. And it says nothing about availability of the stimulus, which is the author's actual reason for switching. This does not justify the recommendation.

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