@sharonvictory, happy to help! The good news is that a subsidiary conclusion also functions as a premise, so you're not far off.
Remember, a subsidiary conclusion is a statement that functions in two ways: (1) it is a conclusion drawn from information in the passage (2) it supports (and thereby acts as a premise for) a larger conclusion in the passage
Let's look at how the claim in question meets both functions. (1) The claim that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" 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. (2) In turn, the claim that "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" supports the main conclusion that "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs." The keyword "therefore" in the last sentence indicates a larger conclusion.
When you have two conclusions and are trying to decipher which is the main conclusion, you should take a step back and think about which supports the other. You can even do so by inserting the word "because" between the two conclusions and seeing if the order makes sense. For example, we can think of these statements as "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." It follows that the conclusion that supports another conclusion will be the subsidiary conclusion.
In this question, (A) is incorrect because support is offered for the claim. That support is drawn from the statements "dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations" and "traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost" as discussed above. Again, the subsidiary conclusion here can also be considered a type of supporting premise as you suggest. The only answer choice that includes this function is (B), so (B) is correct.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
shunheMay 31, 2020
Hi @sharonvictory,
Thanks for the question! Remember what a premise and a subsidiary conclusion are. A premise is a statement that supports another statement, but itself is unsupported. A subsidiary conclusion is going to be a statement that is supported by other premises, but itself goes on to support another statement. Now, let’s take a look at the statement in question here, “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs.” Well, there’s a premise that supports that statement: dog breeders try to maintain only traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost. So those support our premise, making it some kind of conclusion. But it goes on to support the end all conclusion, that pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs. Thus, it is a subsidiary conclusion, and not just a premise, which is why (B) is the correct answer is (A) is false (because if (A) were true, then it would just be a premise, which it’s not).
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
