Self-paced
Pedigreed dogs, including those officially classified as working dogs, must conform to standards set by organizations that issue pedigrees. █████ █████████ █████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █ ███ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██████████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████
Argument Breakdown
With a dense block of text like this, the first step is to carefully parse through and understand the argument. We're talking about pedigreed dogs, specifically working dogs. What about them? The standards that pedigree organizations set, which breeders must ensure their dogs meet. Here's what we learn about those standards:
(1) the standards apply to appearance, but not other characteristics like working traits that were the reason to develop the breed;
(2) breeders only focus on the traits defined by pedigree standards;
(3) traits that breeders don't focus on might become lost;
(4) working traits like herding might become lost (a sub-conclusion following from the previous premises).
From all this, the author concludes that pedigree organizations should include working ability in their standards for working dogs. This conclusion makes a value judgment, but looking closely at the premises, no value judgment is given as support.
14.
The phrase “certain traits like ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
It is a █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████
This is a claim the argument depends on, but it's not unsupported. Other premises are offered to support this claim: specifically, that
b
It is a ██████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████
This phrase offers support to the conclusion that
c
It acknowledges a ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████
The argument doesn't say anything to acknowledge possible objections. This phrase in particular works as direct support for the conclusion, not a concession to any opposing view.
d
It summarizes the ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ██████ █████████████
The only position that the argument could be said to counter is that pedigree standards should not include working traits. But this position isn't stated anywhere in the argument. The phrase we're concerned with is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion, not a counterpoint.
e
It provides evidence █████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████
The only claim that this phrase supports is the main conclusion that