Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT15 S2 Q14 Explanation

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially

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

TopicsRole

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

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees. Those standards generally specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be recognized as belonging to a breed but stipulate nothing about other genetic traits, such as those that enable breeds originally Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.

What this question is testing

Role

Conclusion

The author wants pedigree organizations to start requiring working ability in dogs classified as working dogs.

Evidence

Pedigree standards only cover looks. Breeders only protect what the standards require. Anything not protected risks being lost.

Evaluate

Put those facts together and you get the conclusion the question is asking about: working traits like herding ability are at risk. That mid-step is not just floating — it is what makes the main conclusion (organizations should fix this) feel necessary.

Goal

The phrase is a middle step. It draws on the earlier facts and feeds the final recommendation. Find the answer that says "subsidiary conclusion supporting the main conclusion."

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

The question
14.

The phrase “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs” serves which one of the following

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description5% picked this

    It is a claim on which the argument depends but for which no

    The phrase is not unsupported. The two preceding sentences supply exactly the support: pedigree standards cover only appearance, breeders only maintain what the standards specify, and unmaintained traits risk being lost. Together those premises support the very claim about herding ability being at risk. So this answer mislabels the role.

  2. Correct73% picked this

    It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the

    Why this is right

    This is the precise role of the phrase. It is supported by the earlier premises about pedigree standards and breeder behavior, and it in turn supports the final recommendation that pedigree organizations should require working ability in working dogs. A subsidiary conclusion is a claim that is both supported by something earlier and used to support the main conclusion — exactly what is happening here.

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

  3. Bad Description3% picked this

    It acknowledges a possible objection to the proposal put forth in

    The phrase is not an objection to anything. It is part of the author's own line of reasoning, and it cuts in favor of the proposal — it identifies the very problem the proposal is meant to solve. Treating it as an objection inverts its role.

  4. Bad Description1% picked this

    It summarizes the position that the argument as a whole is

    The author is not arguing against the phrase — the author is arguing from it. The whole point of citing that working traits are at risk is to motivate the call for a change to pedigree standards. The argument supports this claim, not discredits it.

  5. Bad Description18% picked this

    It provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in

    The phrase is supported by the earlier claims, not the other way around. It does not function as evidence for an earlier claim — earlier claims function as evidence for it. The flow of support runs forward, not backward.

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