Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT153 S2 Q4 ExplanationDog owner: In general, large dogs

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

TopicsNecessary Assumption

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

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

Dog owner: In general, large dogs need less intensive exercise than smaller dogs to stay fit. A dog that is not exercised at the level of intensity it needs is more apt to be troublesome than one that is. So for any apartment dweller who has limited time to give a dog dog is less likely to be troublesome than a small one.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

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

The question
4.

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

Answer choices, explained

  1. Out of Scope1% picked this

    An apartment dweller who has limited time to exercise a dog is unlikely to want

    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.

  2. Correct92% picked this

    Providing a dog with more intensive exercise requires more time than providing a dog with

    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.

  3. Out of Scope: should2% picked this

    At least some apartment dwellers who have limited time to exercise a dog should not

    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!)

  4. Unknown Comparison: large vs. small apt.2% picked this

    Of dogs owned by apartment dwellers, those that live in large apartments are less likely to be troublesome than those

    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.

  5. Frequency vs. Intensity3% picked this

    In general, the more often a dog gets exercise, the more likely it is that the

    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.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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