Answer choice (E) states: "There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise."
The veterinarian explains that there is a "disease of purebred racehorses that is caused by a genetic defect prevents afflicted horses from raving and can cause paralysis and death." He then goes on to explain that "in most cases, the severity of the disease can be controlled by diet and medication and the defect also produces horses of extreme beauty that are in great demand in the horse show industry."
The key phrase here is "IN MOST CASES." Answer choice (E) states there should be no prohibition at all, making it seem like the complications in every horse with the disease in question can be controlled through diet and medication. But, this is not the case. We know that this is true "in most cases," but we don't know if it is true in ALL cases. Further, answer choice (E) states that there should be NO prohibition against breeding racehorses that have ANY disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise. We have only been given information about one specific disease; the answer choice starts with "a disease," meaning there is one specific disease we are discussing. We have no information about the many other types of diseases that racehorses may have. No other disease was discussed. So the veterinarian's point can only be related to this specific disease. Thus, answer choice (E) cannot be the main point of the veterinarian.
You can refer to my reply of "OffshoreSuge's" question from 6/27/14 to see exactly why the correct answer is the veterinarian's main point.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any more questions.
RomansAugust 20, 2014
Ohhh I got it now.. Thanks!
caritterJuly 27, 2017
So then would the sentence "in most cases, the severity of the disease can be controlled by diet and medication and the defect produces horses of extreme beauty..." be the premise?
