Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected b...
AddisonPattonAugust 12, 2019
A vs. B
I was stuck between answer choices A and B on this question. To me it seems like B would be the better answer because if all dogs are subject to the same common diseases, wouldn't that mean that nonpurbred wouldn't necessarily be any better than purebred and vice versa?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I had the same question. Is “B” an incorrect answer because we are told in the passage “nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities?” Outside of that, I agree with the with the question above.
sviewlyMarch 30, 2020
I was wondering the same. The conclusion addresses "reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills" to support choosing nopurebred dogs to purebred dogs. I felt like the argument wasn't acknowledging that nonpurebred dogs could still be seriously ill from non-genetically determined abnormalities. Someone could adopt a purebred dog with an abnormality but general well-being, and a nonpurebred dog with plenty of non-genetic health issues that could be expensive to address/corrected. Being nonpurebred doesn't void the possibility of still having serious and expensive health issues. That's why I thought B was the most appropriate answer...
