Question

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.

Short answer

Choice (A) most seriously weakens the argument.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument

The argument suggests that potential dog owners should choose nonpurebred dogs to minimize the risk of incurring high medical costs due to genetically determined abnormalities, which are more common in purebred dogs.

Identify the Argument's Assumption

The argument assumes that genetically determined abnormalities are a significant financial burden and that nonpurebred dogs, by having fewer of these abnormalities, will result in lower medical costs overall.

Evaluate Each Choice

We need to determine which choice, if true, would undermine the argument's suggestion that choosing nonpurebred dogs is the best way to avoid costly medical bills.

Analyze Choice (A)

Choice (A) mentions that most genetically determined abnormalities do not seriously affect a dog's well-being. This weakens the argument because if such abnormalities are not significant, they may not require costly treatments, thus not justifying the preference for nonpurebred dogs.

Analyze Choice (B)

Choice (B) states that all dogs are subject to the same common non-genetically determined diseases. This does not address the cost of genetically determined abnormalities, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

Analyze Choice (C)

Choice (C) claims purebred dogs have shorter life spans. This is unrelated to the argument about genetically determined abnormalities and their associated medical costs.

Analyze Choice (D)

Choice (D) states that nonpurebred dogs have a lower purchase price. This is unrelated to genetically determined abnormalities, so it doesn't weaken the argument.

Analyze Choice (E)

Choice (E) suggests that even dogs without abnormalities can have offspring with abnormalities. This does not address the immediate concern of lower medical costs for a current pet.

Conclusion

Thus, Choice (A) most seriously weakens the argument by suggesting that the abnormalities do not significantly impact financial costs.

Key concepts

Critical Reasoning

Critical reasoning is the skill of evaluating arguments to detect their strengths and weaknesses. In this exercise, critical reasoning is about assessing an argument regarding pet preference based on health costs. A critical reasoner would first understand the core claim: nonpurebred dogs are recommended to avoid high medical costs due to abnormalities in purebred dogs.

Next, it’s vital to evaluate the assumptions underlying this claim. The argument assumes that such medical costs are substantial enough to influence the decision of getting a pet. Critically examining each potential challenge to this argument requires questioning these assumptions and analyzing whether any presented evidence effectively diminishes the argument's soundness.

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning helps us understand relationships between given statements and drawing valid inferences. In the context of this exercise, logical reasoning involves dissecting the argument structure; identifying premises and conclusions, and assessing logical connections.

The argument consists of premises about the nature of canine abnormalities and a conclusion about pet choices. It connects premises about genetic health and cost to suggest a conclusion favoring nonpurebred dogs. Applying logical reasoning, you can evaluate new information, such as whether the cost of abnormalities is truly impactful on overall expenses, or if comparably significant issues affect both purebred and nonpurebred breeds alike.

Argument Evaluation

Argument evaluation involves assessing the validity and strength of an argument by identifying any flaws or assumptions. This exercise challenges you to spot which piece of evidence would most significantly weaken the argument. The argument rests on perceptions of financial burden due to medical costs.

By assessing each answer choice:

• Choose (A) weakens the argument by suggesting cost savings may not be significant if abnormalities are non-consequential.
• Other options lack focus on the cost relationship, thus lesser impact on the argument.

Effective argument evaluation weighs these impacts to discern which option most seriously undermines the core claim.

LSAT Preparation

Preparing for the LSAT entails honing skills such as critical and logical reasoning, as illustrated in this exercise. LSAT preparation involves familiarizing oneself with tasks akin to evaluating arguments about real-world scenarios.

Mastering this involves:

• Understanding conclusions within arguments,
• Identifying assumptions or hidden premises,
• Challenging these with counter-evidence or logical deductions.

This exercise serves as a practice in applying these techniques, sharpening your ability to deftly navigate and respond to LSAT-style questions, enhancing both speed and accuracy.