Lsat Purebred Dogs

IMO A .

C, D and E are Irrelevant .

Left with A and B.

A :- Talking about normal well being of dogs , that is going to affect their day to day life .
B :- Both are equally prone to non genetical diseases , hence it doesnt weaken the argument.

AIM GMAT wrote:IMO A .

C, D and E are Irrelevant .

Left with A and B.

A :- Talking about normal well being of dogs , that is going to affect their day to day life .
B :- Both are equally prone to non genetical diseases , hence it doesnt weaken the argument.

Why dont u think E weakens the Argument because Owners may still have to incur expenditure on non purebred dogs if the non purebred dogs have offspring suffering from genetically prone diseases

IMO E

mundasingh123 wrote:Why dont u think E weakens the Argument because Owners may still have to incur expenditure on non purebred dogs if the non purebred dogs have offspring suffering from genetically prone diseases

(E) is tempting, but we don't really know if the offspring from a nonpurebred or purrebred has a higher chance of abnormaltities
i went for (A)

IMO -A


Conclusion : if owner's want to save money ,they should buy nonpurebred dogs.

Why others are wrong

B- we do not know whether nongenitically determinded diseases are costly or not
C-actually strengthening. No one wants to buy an animal with shorter life span anyways.
D- we are concerned about cost spent on treatment not buying cost.
E-out of scope

gtr02 wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Why dont u think E weakens the Argument because Owners may still have to incur expenditure on non purebred dogs if the non purebred dogs have offspring suffering from genetically prone diseases

(E) is tempting, but we don't really know if the offspring from a nonpurebred or purrebred has a higher chance of abnormaltities
i went for (A)

WE are assuming that all the answer choices are true.The question stem says "Which of the foll. answer choices if true "

IMO E

A : "do not seriously" : means there is at least some non serious effect which might require some treatment. Results in some medical bill.

E. Leaves no room for medical bill.

What is IMO????

My answer is A...

Conclusion:
Potential dog owners who wish to reduce expenses for their pets' costly medical care would stop their choice on non-pure-bred dogs.

WHY?

Premises:
Pure-bred dogs may undergo genetic abnormalities
These abnormalities are costly to correct by doctors

ON THE OTHER HAND

Non-pure-bred dogs are mostly free of genetic abnormalities

Gap No 1
Conclusion contains condition/reservation: "Potential dog owners who wish to reduce expenses ..." - the expense reduction idea of the dog owners is caused (CAUSAL EFFECT) by expensive bills for their pets' medical care.

Gap No 2 - Flaw in Assumption/Reasoning
Why would potential dog owners trade off the idea of having spent less and owning non-pure-bred dog with the idea to own pure-bred dog and spend more. Are the two dog categories similar (ANALOGY mistake)?

Answer choice A indicates that pure-bred dogs are actually having their well-being not affected with the genetic abnormalities. This points to other than genetic abnormality, health related issues screened by the potential dog owners. The dog owners would favor owning the pure-bred dogs even with genetic abnormalities - the CAUSAL EFFECT Gap No1 is gone.

I got a PM on this one...

Here is the text of the question in the file:

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?

(A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in
dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general
well-being.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred,
are subject to the same common nongenetically
determined diseases.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life
spans than do nonpurebred dogs.

(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends
to be lower than the purchase price of
purebred dogs.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically
determined abnormalities may nevertheless
have offspring with such abnormalities.

This is from the October 1993 test, Logical Reasoning section 1, question #12.

This is a weaken question. We start with the conclusion. The conclusion is "potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs."

What is the evidence? As stated by posts above it is the fact that pure-bred dogs have genetic abnormalities and these are costly to fix. Non pure-bred dogs rarely suffer from the genetic abnormalities.

So we are looking to weaken this argument. We want a reason why these premises do not necessarily lead to this conclusion.

The logic has a flaw in it. We need to find that flaw. Answer Choice A is that flaw. Why? Because the one question we have not asked is, "Do the genetically determined abnormalities need to be fixed?" If the answer is "no" if we do not need to fix these abnormalities - if they are like a drooping tail or something that is not vital then people can feel free to get a purebred dog since they will not have to pay to get these things fixed.

So the answer is A.

Choice E is not correct because it requires too many assumptions. We have to assume that people are going to have offspring from their non pure-bred dogs and then, what need medical care for these offspring - maybe? This is too far away from the argument. Too many steps in between. A is much closer does not need so many assumptions on our part. Go with A.

David@VeritasPrep wrote: Choice E is not correct because it requires too many assumptions. We have to assume that people are going to have offspring from their non pure-bred dogs and then, what need medical care for these offspring - maybe? This is too far away from the argument. Too many steps in between. A is much closer does not need so many assumptions on our part. Go with A.

when an answer choice requires too many assumptions, can we automatically knock that out?

Our answers must be based on the information given. We cannot "invent" facts to arrive at a conclusion. In this example we don't know whether the owners are going to breed their purebred dogs, whether they will even keep the puppies if they do breed the dogs, or whether the abnormalities show up so shortly after birth that they would be the breeder's responsibility.

Argument says that purebred dogs lead to ----- genetic abnormalities that lead to------ bad health of dog resulting in high surgery costs

Cause: Purebred dogs are prone to genetic abnormalities
Conclusion:Genetic abnormalities lead to bad health of dog that lead to high surgery costs. So to avoid heavy medical expense, avoid purebred dogs.


A: . However Answer A says that the above cause does not lead to underlined portion of the conclusion. So clearly it weakens the stated premise or cause of the argument. CORRECT ANSWER

B: Neutral to the conclusion. Conclusion talks of expenses related to genetic abnormalities NOT non genetic problems

C: Neutral. Life span is not related to medical expense

D: Unrelated. Conclusion talks of medical expense not buying expense.

E: Unassumed assumptions: Owners may not keep the offsprings. We cannot make the assumption that they will keep the offspring and incur medical expenses on them. Lets keep to the current generation of purebreds for now.


Cheers
TJ

David@VeritasPrep wrote:I got a PM on this one...

Here is the text of the question in the file:

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously
weakens the argument?

(A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in
dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general
well-being.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred,
are subject to the same common nongenetically
determined diseases.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life
spans than do nonpurebred dogs.

(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends
to be lower than the purchase price of
purebred dogs.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically
determined abnormalities may nevertheless
have offspring with such abnormalities.

This is from the October 1993 test, Logical Reasoning section 1, question #12.

This is a weaken question. We start with the conclusion. The conclusion is "potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs."

What is the evidence? As stated by posts above it is the fact that pure-bred dogs have genetic abnormalities and these are costly to fix. Non pure-bred dogs rarely suffer from the genetic abnormalities.

So we are looking to weaken this argument. We want a reason why these premises do not necessarily lead to this conclusion.

The logic has a flaw in it. We need to find that flaw. Answer Choice A is that flaw. Why? Because the one question we have not asked is, "Do the genetically determined abnormalities need to be fixed?" If the answer is "no" if we do not need to fix these abnormalities - if they are like a drooping tail or something that is not vital then people can feel free to get a purebred dog since they will not have to pay to get these things fixed.

So the answer is A.

Choice E is not correct because it requires too many assumptions. We have to assume that people are going to have offspring from their non pure-bred dogs and then, what need medical care for these offspring - maybe? This is too far away from the argument. Too many steps in between. A is much closer does not need so many assumptions on our part. Go with A.

Hi David , arn't u assuming that the owners will not want to have their dogs treated because the defects dont affect the dogs' well being .What if its just a cosmetic effect like the nose is deformed . Although the defect is not problematic for the dog , the owner may still want to have the defect treated because the defect makes the dog ugly to look at.
A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in
dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general
well-being.