bhatiagp wrote:
Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dogs general well-being.
(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred, are subject to the same common nongenetically determined diseases.
(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life spans than do nonpurebred dogs.
(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends to be lower than the purchase price of purebred dogs.
(E) A dog that does not have genetically determined abnormalities may nevertheless have offspring with such abnormalities.
Ans is A, here is why:
Conlcusion: to reduce risk of high medical bills choose nonpurebred (NPB)
WHY?
Evidence: PBs are prone to GDA, NPB rarely suffer
so the author assumes that if I buy PB dog I have to bring it to the vet to make PB feel better. oh yeah? what if I and my PB Fido are ok with 3 eyes and two tails? Nature is nature!
a) tells us that 3 eyes and two tails are ok as long as does not affect fido well-being
b) talk about
nongenetically diseases --
out of scopec) shorter life spans do not necessarily mean $$$$ vet bills
d) PB purchase price > NPB price has nothing to do with medical bills. This ans choice wants you to make an assumption if cheaper than less maintenance problems. Think Lada.
e) old news. E tells that NPBs
may have GDA, well we already know that. If you recall, the evidence tells us that says "NPB
rarely suffer" -- rarely but do suffer i.e. may have it