Happy to help. The stimulus starts by giving us information about pedigreed dog standards. We know that these standards specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be recognized as belonging to a certain breed. However, we also know that there are no stipulations about other genetic traits, such as those that enable breeds originally developed as working dogs to perform the work for which they were developed. These are premises in the argument.
The stimulus then says that since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost, certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. This sentence has two parts: a premise and a conclusion. The conclusion is that certain traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost, and the support for this is because dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost.
So far, we have premises in the first few sentences that work together to support the conclusion that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs."
The final sentence of the stimulus states, "Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.
This sounds like a conclusion, too, so we know there are two conclusions in this argument. How do we know which one is the main one? We look to see which of the two conclusions supports the other.
A good test for doing this is putting the word "because" between the two conclusions and seeing which order makes sense.
"Certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" because "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs." Does this make sense? Nope, not at all.
Let's flip it: "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs" because "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs." This makes much more sense. So now we know that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" is a subsidiary conclusion in the argument.
The question stem asks us to identify the function of "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs." We know that it's a subsidiary/intermediate conclusion, so now we just need to find the answer choice that best paraphrases our prediction.
Answer B says, "It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion," and this is exactly what we had figured out and were looking for in the answers. This is the correct answer, as it matches what we were looking for.
Does this help? Let us know if you have more questions!
mhFebruary 24, 2019
Perfect explanation! thank you.
RaviFebruary 26, 2019
Happy it helped! Let us know if you have any other questions!
sydsheerinMay 11, 2019
What are some tips, with differentiating evidence from a subsidiary conclusion?
CMarrNovember 23, 2019
Can someone explain why the format is conclusion and then subsidiary conclusion when we take two conclusions and flip them to see which is which? I don't understand the format used above?
