Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Altho

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 scope

c) 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

It is hard to improve on gixxer's explanation. The conclusion is that you will have less risk of high medical bills for your dog if you choose a non-purebred. The evidence is that purebred dogs are more prone to genetic abnormalities, and that it costs thousands of dollars to correct these abnormalities surgically. To weaken the argument, you have to break the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. "Breaking the connection" means contradicting or undermining the assumption. In this case, one assumption is that if your dog has such an abnormality, you DO have to correct it surgically. Choice A definitely undermines this assumption.

As always, we do not care whether A is actually TRUE or not; the question is whether the argument is weaker if it IS true. I don't think very many purebred German Shepherds would agree with A, once their hips freeze up. But that's irrelevant for CR.

Choice B does not help. It is true that the argument also assumes that there is NOT some other kind of expensive-to-correct problem to which NON-purebred dogs are MORE susceptible. But B does not attack this assumption; it only says that there is another set of conditions to which they are EQUALLY susceptible. It would need to identify something that is MORE common among non-purebreds in order to weaken the assumption.

Simplify the argument

Premise -
1. Cost of correcting genetic abnormalities in purebred dogs can reach several thousand dollars.
2. Non purebred dogs rarely suffer from these abnormalities.

Conclusion -
Dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose non purebred dogs.

Option A - Correct.
this suggests that owning purebred dogs may not be as costly as was thought earlier because those abnormalities do not affect a dog's well-being.

Option B - Incorrect.
But the cost of owning purebred dogs is still much higher because of costs of correcting genetic irregularities.

Option C - Incorrect.
Kind of strengthens the argument. Suggests that owning purebred dogs may not be such a good idea after all.

Option D - Incorrect.
Not relevant as we are talking about reducing "medical bills", not "purchase prices".

Option E - Incorrect.
It does not have any effect on my conclusion that choosing non purebred dogs reduces medical bills.

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.


Conclusion:all owner who want to avoid cost inccured due to treatment of surgeries should buy nonpurebred dogs,

Option 1 is correct to weaken the argument since it says that the dogs with such condition are overall healthy and not neccessarily require expensive medical treatments.

A says that general well-being of such dogs isn't affected. True, but this doesn't mean that the owner might not have to do a surgery for an abnormality resulting out of genetics at some point of dog's lifetime. The fact/premise clearly says "Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities."

IMO E is a better choice as the owner might end-up buying an offspring (theoretically nonpurebred dog) with such abnormality. In that case owner has to incur the cost of surgery anyhow.

Please correct me in case I'm wrong.

IMO the OA isnt very convincing. To weaken an argument is to weaken the assumption or to do the conclusion. The answer A is to weaken the assumption while the answer E is clearly to me weakening the conclusion. The sense is that to choose non purebred dogs might still incur risk of high cost to cure abbormalities for their pets due to their offspring might still have abnormalities. Between answer A or answer E, the choice that is to weaken to conclusion is more correct than the one that weakens the assumption

Posted from my mobile device

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. - CORRECT. A reason for a possible risk reduction of medical cost.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred, are subject to the same common nongenetically determined diseases. - WRONG. Then what happens. We don't know and thus can't say further.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life spans than do nonpurebred dogs. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends to be lower than the purchase price of purebred dogs. - WRONG. Purchase price does not equals medical bills. Irrelevant.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically determined abnormalities may nevertheless have offspring with such abnormalities. - WRONG. Tricks initially but medical bills are concerned for the present generation of dog/s not offsprings.

Answer A.