Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT23 S2 Q2 Explanation

The point of the veterinarian’s

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

Veterinarian: A disease of purebred racehorses that is caused by a genetic defect prevents afflicted horses from racing and can cause paralysis and death. Some horse breeders conclude that because the disease can have such serious consequences, horses with this defect should not be bred. But they are wrong because, in most of extreme beauty that are in great demand in the horse show industry.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
2.

The point of the veterinarian’s response to the horse breeders is most accurately expressed by which one

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: prevented from racing5% picked this

    Racehorses that have the genetic defect need not be prevented

    The rebuttal the author is making is about whether or not horses with this defect should be bred, not whether or not they should be prevented from racing.

  2. Correct70% picked this

    There should not be an absolute ban on breeding racehorses that have

    Why this is right

    This matches "but they are wrong". What did they say? Horses with this defect should not be bred. So our author is saying, "It's not the case that horses with this defect should not be bred." In other words, "it's okay if horses with this defect are bred." That means the same thing as "there shouldn't be an absolute ban".

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

  3. Never Mentioned: not provided diet2% picked this

    Racehorses that are severely afflicted with the disease have not been provided with

    Some trap answers try to sound like "a correct answer for a different question type". On Main Conclusion, you'll see answers that feel like an Inference or a Necessary Assumption, but that's not our task here. We're just trying to name the actual explicit conclusion, which in this case was "but they're wrong [to say that horses with this defect should not be bred]."

  4. Never Mentioned: best way1% picked this

    The best way to produce racehorses of extreme beauty is to breed horses that have

    This was never said. We're just trying to name the actual explicit conclusion, which in this case was "but they're wrong [to say that horses with this defect should not be bred]."

  5. Too Broad23% picked this

    There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled

    This is close, but the author is rebutting a claim that says, "horses with this defect should not be bred". This claim is about whether "horses with diseases that can be controlled by diet and exercise should be bred".

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