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

Mehran April 22, 2017

@JayDee8732 (E) is not stating that is it necessary for the conclusion.

It states, "it provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in the argument."

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

helen December 12, 2017

yes a claim stated earlier in the argument -- "and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost"

Corin-Voinche November 18, 2018

I have read the previous discussions and I still do not understand how it is the subsidiary conclusion. I had initially underlined the first sentence as the Subsidiary Conclusion. Can you please explain why the first sentence would not be the SC?
The way I thought about it was that
"certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" was the premise supporting
the SC "Pedigreed dogs, including those...,must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees."
which in turn supported Conclusion.

That is how I chose "E" over "B"
Is there a more in depth explanation?

Jacob-R November 20, 2018

I’m happy to help.

First, a note about why I would not choose answer E. Note that answer E posits that the phrase “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs” is “evidence.” That phrase (and not the rest of the sentence) doesn’t sound like evidence to me — where are the facts, or numbers, or data in that phrase? There aren’t any!

On top of that, answer E states that this phrase provides evidence to support an earlier claim. The only claims we have so far are 1. Working dogs must conform to standards; 2. Standards specify the physical appearance and not genetic traits, such as performing work.

Would you really describe the phrase of “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs” as “evidence” for either of those two earlier claims? I don’t think so.

That is why answer B is correct — this phrase is a conclusion, and we know it is a subsidiary to the conclusion that pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability. We know it is subsidiary because it helps form a logical chain to get to that final conclusion. Imagine the reverse - pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability, and therefore certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. That doesn’t make sense! So answer B is correct.

I hope that helps. Please let us know if you have further questions.

Raechel-Brodsky May 18, 2020

I am having trouble scoping out what all sentences are doing in an argument while reading very wordy or lengthy passages. Can someone give me some helpful tools/resources for identifying argument structure? I watched the lesson video, which was very helpful, but I am still having trouble really distinguishing what an argument is doing, especially if the main points are in the middle of the passage. In that case, I am not sure if I should be referencing the sentence previous to that part of the passage or preceding it.