Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q4 Dog owner: In general, large dogs

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

Dog owner: In general, large dogs need less intensive exercise than smaller dogs to stay fit.

Conclusion

If you live in an apartment, want a dog, but have limited time to give a dog exercise, a large dog is less likely to be troublesome than a small one.

Evidence

Large dogs need less intensive exercise than smaller dogs. A dog that is not exercised at its needed level of intensity is more troublesome than one that is.

Evaluate

Since we're trying to prove that , and we have a rule that says , we know that our logical job is to establish this:

Small dogs, in an apartment owned by someone with limited time to give a dog exercise, are less likely than big dogs to be exercised at their needed level of intensity.

We do have one other fact that could potentially be used. Smaller dogs need more intensive exercise than large dogs.

So as an extension of assuming that , we could say .

Goal

Because "more/less likely to be troublesome" shows up in the Conclusion and the Evidence, this seems bound to test connect-the-dots thinking.

We just need to establish that small dogs are less likely to get their needed intensity of exercise than are large dogs, given the context of .

But if I were using my objection brain, I would think, (the author is assuming, "no, they can not just get their exercise that way).

Which one of the following is an assumption the dog owner's argument requires?

An apartment dweller who has
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: not wanting a dog This argument is only about the people in the conclusion, who are apartment dwellers who have limited time to give a dog exercise but who want to have a dog. The author doesn't have to assume anything about other people / other situations.
1% picked this
Correct
Providing a dog with more
Why this is right
The author was definitely Assuming a Difference, when it came to large dogs and small dogs. He thought that an apartment dweller with limited time would have an easier time exercising a large dog to its needed intensity than they would exercising a small dog to its needed intensity (which is higher than that of a large dog). So if the author thinks that we'll have a harder time exercising the dog that requires more intensive exercise, he must be thinking that dogs who require more intensive exercise require more time to exercise than do dogs with lower exercise intensity needs. If we negate this, and it says, "Providing the more-intense dog with adequate exercise does not require any more time", then it would be a huge objection. It would destroy the assumed difference between how things would go with "apartment + limited time + large dog" vs. "apartment + limited time + small dog".
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
92% picked this
At least some apartment dwellers
Out of Scope: should
The author isn't saying anything normative that would allow us to derive her assumptions on what should be the case. She's just describing what is. Also, this sentiment does not sound like her. She is offering advice for what people w/ limited time, in an apartment, should do if they want a dog (get a large one!)
2% picked this
Of dogs owned by apartment
Unknown Comparison: large vs. small apt.
We only talked about apartments in one categorical way. We can't divide up that category into large apartments and small apartments and pretend like the author had a clear position on that split.
2% picked this
In general, the more often
Frequency vs. Intensity
This answer shouldn't be appealing to us, in the sense that it is lost in the language of the first sentence, which was a premise. We're being tested on what is assumed as the author moves from Premise to Conclusion. We're not being tested on the internal logic of something said in the Premise. The paragraph talks about exercising your dog at the right intensity in order to stay fit. It doesn't talk about the frequency with which you give your dog exercise, so that concept is also out of scope.
3% 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