Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations...

Skylar December 8, 2019

@Abs, thanks for your question.

In this passage, the claim that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" is a subsidiary conclusion that supports the main conclusion that "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs."

A subsidiary conclusion is any minor conclusion presented in the passage that supports the overall claim in turn. So, we know that the claim that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" is a subsidiary conclusion because it is drawn (i.e. concluded) from the premises introduced earlier in the same sentence - that "dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations" and that "traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost." The word "since" at the beginning of that sentence is a keyword indicator for introducing a premise in support of a conclusion. Moreover, the keyword "therefore" in the last sentence indicates a larger conclusion.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that subsidiary conclusions can simultaneously be premises in support of a main conclusion. This is the case in our passage, as this subsidiary conclusion could also be considered a type of supporting premise as you suggest. However, none of the other answer choices offer that as an option, so (B) is correct.

(A) is incorrect because support is given for the claim, (C) is incorrect because the claim does not highlight an objection, (D) is incorrect because it is not a full summary and it does not attempt to discredit a position, and (E) is incorrect because you could argue that the evidence is not "necessary" and because the claim it supports is later in the argument.

Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have additional questions and best of luck with your studies!

embloom May 24, 2020

Hi @Skylar, I'm still a bit confused on why this a subsidiary conclusion and not just a premise. I understand what you're saying about aspects earlier in the sentence acting as a premise, but could you maybe elaborate more on why this is a subsidiary conclusion? It seems like a specific statement, so I am a bit confused. Thank you!