Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dog

Question

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees. Those standards generally specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be recognized as belonging to a breed but stipulate nothing about other genetic traits, such as those that enable breeds originally developed as working dogs to perform the work for which they were developed. Since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost, certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.

The phrase “certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs” serves which one of the following functions in the argument?

(A) It is a claim on which the argument depends but for which no support is given.

(B) It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion.

(C) It acknowledges a possible objection to the proposal put forth in the argument.

(D) It summarizes the position that the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting.

(E) It provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in the argument.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer choice is (B)

The argument has an interesting structure. Visually, the argument appears as follows:  Premise:  Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees.  Premise:  Those standards generally specify the physical appearance necessary for a dog to be recognized as belonging to a breed but stipulate nothing about other genetic traits, such as those that enable breeds originally developed as working dogs to perform the work for which they were developed.  Premise:  Dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost.

Sub-conclusion / Premise:  Certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. Conclusion: Therefore, pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs. Given the size of the stimulus, this is a tough problem to analyze. The second to last sentence contains both a premise and a conclusion. The final sentence contains the main conclusion. Perhaps because of the size of the problem, the test makers kindly inserted the conclusion indicator “therefore” before the main conclusion.

Answer choice (A): This is a Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The phrase referenced in the question is a “claim on which the argument depends,” but it is not one for which no support is given. In fact, several premises back up the statement.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer. The statement in question is a sub-conclusion, described in this answer as a subsidiary conclusion.

Answer choice (C): The phrase in question is in agreement with the argument, and does not reference a possible objection. If you were to choose this answer, you would have to ask yourself, “What is the possible objection mentioned in this answer choice?”

Answer choice (D): The argument as a whole works towards supporting the recommendation that “pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.” The phrase in the question stem does not summarize the antithesis of that position.

Answer choice (E): This answer has the order of the argument backwards. The phrase referenced in the question stem provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated later in the argument.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear BPHASDEU I'm happy to help. :-)

I don't know the source. They have a grammar mistake in the prompt, right in the BF section: . . . certain traits like herding ability . . . Of course, by GMAT SC standards, this should be: . . . certain traits such as herding ability . . . Every once in a while, an official question makes this sort of mistake, but it is unusual that it's right in the BF section, the most highlighted part of the prompt. This BF section is a speculation, a prediction for what may take place in the future. It is NOT evidence. It is not the main conclusion, but it supports the main conclusion. A. It is a claim on which the argument depends but for which no support is given . The BF section is an argument, a claim, and the conclusion does seem to depend on it to some extent, but it's extreme to say " no support " is given to it. In fact the first half of the sentence, before the BF, gives plenty of support to the BF section. This is incorrect. B. It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion . Yes, the BF is a secondary conclusion, a subsidiary conclusion, and it does support the main conclusion. This looks promising. C. It acknowledges a possible objection to the proposal put forth in the argument . No, the BF supports the main conclusion. There are no objections in this argument. This is 100% wrong. D. It summarizes the position that the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting . No, it is totally in line with the argument's main conclusion. It is not opposed to the argument in any way. This is 100% wrong. E. It provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in the argument . It is NOT evidence. It is a claim, an argument. This is incorrect. The only possible answer is (B) . Here are a few more practice questions. GMAT Critical Reasoning: Boldface Structure Questions Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

anurag16589 · Answer

Hello Mike,

Isn't BF part an example/evidence of previous sentence  '' and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost'', which is supporting the argument???.
Also, we can call ''ánd traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost'' as subsidiary conclusion, rather than the example used which is ''certain traits like.....''.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear anurag16589 , I'm happy to respond. :-)

I hunted down the source: this is a question from a real LSAT in June 1995. No wonder there's a grammar mistake not consistent with the GMAT SC: lawyers don't have SC questions on the LSAT, so apparently they don't need to know grammar as much as do folks in the business world! :-)

I would say that, at best, it's debatable whether we could the BF clause evidence. On the GMAT SC, evidence is something definite that has happened or something definite that has been the case. Evidence is unambiguously factual in its presentation. The way this BF clause is phrased is as a kind of prediction. Perhaps this is part of a scientific pattern that has been observed for a while, in which case it definitely would be evidence, but the phrasing makes that unclear. Because this BF clause is presented as the consequence of a clause beginning with " since ," it has more the feel of an argument than of evidence. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we could call this BF clause evidence. Then what? Clearly, (E) is still not correct--there are not claims " earlier in the argument ," because everything before that sentence clearly is evidence. Even if we grant that this phrase could count as evidence, this doesn't change the answer at all. In my view, since the BF clause is the direct consequence of a clause beginning with " since ," it is the claim or conclusion of an argument. It's not the main conclusion, but it supports the main conclusion, so it's a subsidiary conclusion. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

Bunuel · Answer

Same stem Strengthen question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/pedigreed-do ... 69497.html

A_Nishith · Answer

Argument Structure:
 Premise 1:  Pedigreed dogs must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees.
 Premise 2 : These standards specify physical appearance but not other genetic traits, like working abilities.
 Premise 3:  Breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations.
 Premise 4:  Traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost.
 Intermediate Conclusion:  Certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs.
 Main Conclusion : Pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs.
 Role of the Phrase: 
The phrase "certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs" is an intermediate conclusion drawn from the premises. It supports the main conclusion, which is that pedigree organizations should include working ability in their standards.

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) It is a claim on which the argument depends but for which no support is given.

Incorrect. The argument provides support for the claim by discussing how breeders focus on traits specified by pedigree organizations.

(B) It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion.

Correct. The phrase acts as an intermediate conclusion that helps to build the case for the main conclusion.

(C) It acknowledges a possible objection to the proposal put forth in the argument.

Incorrect. The phrase does not address an objection; rather, it strengthens the argument.

(D) It summarizes the position that the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting.

Incorrect. The phrase supports the argument, not discredits it.

(E) It provides evidence necessary to support a claim stated earlier in the argument.

Incorrect. The phrase itself is a conclusion based on earlier premises, not evidence.

Correct Answer:
(B) It is a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dog

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dog

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards