Self-study
Veterinarian: A disease of purebred racehorses that is caused by a genetic defect prevents afflicted horses from racing and can cause paralysis and death. ████ █████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █████████
Argument Structure
·
Disease Shmisease
Here's a summary laying out the argument's structure:
Everyone acknowledges: This genetic defect causes a really bad disease. It stops horses from racing and sometimes kills them.
Breeders conclusion: We shouldn't breed the horses.
Vet conclusion: Actually we should breed the horses.
Vet's support: Diet helps moderate the symptoms, and the defect also makes pretty horses!
3.
The veterinarian's argument employs which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
calling into question ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ █████
You should eliminate (A) at the word motives, which points to a different (and often flawed) pattern of reasoning – the argumentum ad hominem. It’s a common pattern, so you should aspire to recognize it immediately when you see it in the stimulus or answer choices.
b
demonstrating that the █████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██
The new considerations the vet cites might suggest that on balance the breeders’ conclusion isn’t well supported by their evidence. But that falls short of inconsistency.
Inconsistent is a very strong word. You need two claims that cannot possibly both be true. It’s almost always wrong to accuse an LSAT argument of being inconsistent.
Inconsistent isn’t just “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but he hasn’t been to a party in ages.” Inconsistent is “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but parties are not Bill’s favorite activity.”
c
providing evidence that ███████████ ███ █████ █████████ ████████
The vet’s evidence weighs against the horse breeders’ evidence, but falls short of contradiction. Contradictory evidence would be have to show the disease doesn't kill horses.
Contradicts is a very strong word. You need two claims that cannot possibly both be true.
A contradiction isn’t just “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but he hasn’t been to a party in ages.” A contradiction is “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but parties are not Bill’s favorite activity.”
d
disputing the accuracy ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████ █████████ ████████ ███████
The vet doesn’t contest the genetic defect’s downsides. They don’t say “actually the disease doesn’t kill horses!”
The vet acknowledges those downsides, but brings up additional factors that potentially outweigh those downsides.
e
introducing considerations that ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ████████
The vet does indeed introduce considerations (diet and beauty) that lead to a different conclusion (they are wrong / let’s breed some diseased horses) from that of the horse breeders.