Logical Reasoning

PT15 · S2 · Q14 Pedigreed dogs, including those officially

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

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees.

Conclusion

Pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.

Evidence

Pedigree standards specify physical appearance only, not other genetic traits. Breeders maintain only traits the standards specify, and unmaintained traits risk being lost.

Intermediate Conclusion

Therefore, certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs.

Evaluate

The referenced phrase comes after the premises and before the main conclusion. It is the bridge — supported by the facts about standards and breeder behavior, and used in turn to motivate the recommendation that pedigree organizations should require working ability.

Goal

Identify the answer that calls this phrase a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion that supports the main conclusion.

14.

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

It is a claim on
Bad Description
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.
5% picked this
Correct
It is a subsidiary conclusion
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.
73% picked this
It acknowledges a possible objection
Bad Description
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.
3% picked this
It summarizes the position that
Bad Description
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.
1% picked this
It provides evidence necessary to
Bad Description
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.
18% 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