PT1.S3.Q13 - Dog Breeds

kwillar9kwillar9 Member
edited August 2021 in Logical Reasoning 248 karma

Not sure why this question isn't clicking. I have no idea how this question stem relates to a dog being a pit bull because of what it does, not because of its breed. I think I am unable to unattach a dogs "breed" from the term, "pit bull." Can anyone help me out? Thank you!

Comments

  • BlueRiceCakeBlueRiceCake Member
    302 karma

    The first sentence is the conclusion because every other sentence is used as premises to support that sentence.

    Seeing eye dogs and police dogs are described by what they do not because of their breed. There are many different breeds of seeing eye dogs and police dogs.

    Pitbulls are like seeing eye dogs and police dogs.

    So they are designated by what they do and not their breed

  • McBeck418McBeck418 Member
    500 karma

    Hey. Here is a little bit of information about the term pit bulls for context. (https://animalfoundation.com/whats-going-on/blog/pitbull-breed)

    The first sentence is the conclusion. It wants to convince us that pit bulls are not a breed of dog (bred selectively for their genetic traits)

    The second part goes on to explain why that is. Dogs can have jobs that they're trained for (seeing eye dog/police dog) and that is similar to the pit bull that is trained to fight.

  • JusticeLawJusticeLaw Member
    194 karma

    I don't know if this helps. I still have issues with intermediate conclusions and this particular problem struck me below the belt when I first attempted it because I thought I was confident with conclusion question and I got it wrong. However, when I went back to study what I did wrong, I looked at it as a policy recommendation for sentence 1. Whereby, sentence 2 and 3 in my opinion are premises. Thereby, respectfully speaking, in my opinion, this whole LSAT test is confusing.

    I'm not an expert at this, so if anybody wants to jump in and help, please do so. Moreover, thanks for asking the question. I'm a shy person and I usually hesitate asking questions.

    This is a good question. It doesn't have any indicator words, neither the "should or ought" for policy recommendation. Moreover, the answer choices all look tempting.

    Respectfully speaking, if it is not considered a policy recommendation, then I guess it is like a thesis statement. Thereby, bottom line for whatever it is worth, sentence 1 is the conclusion. However, now that I am able to find or determine the correct conclusion in the stimuli, it is selecting the correct answer choice that is striking me out. Wherefore, certain matters in the answer choices looked attractive.

    In selecting the right answer choice for conclusion questions, you must consider one thing and that is the wrong answer choices and why they are wrong. The correct answer closely matches the conclusion and wrong answers can be premises or a mess and mixture of issues. Thereby, if you pick or determine the wrong sentence, phrase, clause or wording in the stimulus as the conclusion, you are at risk of selecting the wrong answer choice.

    This exam is very technical. I was hooked on answer choice (E), which I finally understand now the reason why it is incorrect while writing this post.

    The star of the show is the term "pit bull" and the phrase, clause or words tacked on to it in sentence 1 up to the comma. The rest of the sentence and everything thereafter, I would consider premises in support of that one little phrase or clause.

    Then you have to go into the meat of the clause, first part of sentence 1, and with other questions, understand or determine what it is saying or referring to. Answer choice (E) through me a loop because it was talking about some breeds. It's not "some breeds", it's "pit bull. Which is answer choice (C)

    Respectfully speaking, this is not a test to play jet plane on when you are first starting out. I hope this helps.

Sign In or Register to comment.