LSAT 23 - Section 2 - Question 02

The point of the veterinarian’s response to the horse breeders is most accurately expressed by which one of the following?

The question stem’s language – “point … is most accurately expressed” – tells us this is a Main Conclusion question.

Veterinarian: A disease of purebred racehorses that is caused by a genetic defect prevents afflicted horses from racing and can cause paralysis and death.

The veterinarian starts by telling us about a certain kind of disease in racehorses caused by a genetic defect.

Then we get a cookie cutter structure – other people’s argument.

Some horse breeders conclude that because the disease can have such serious consequences, horses with this defect should not be bred.

The claim that the disease can have such serious consequences is the horse breeder’s premise, which supports their conclusion that horses with the defect shouldn’t be bred.

What do you expect to see right after we get other people’s argument? The author’s disagreement. And that’s exactly what we get:

But they are wrong...

What are the horse breeders wrong about? Their conclusion – that horses with the genetic defect should not be bred. By calling the horse breeders wrong, the author is saying, “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”

Ninety-nine percent of the time on the LSAT, the author’s rejection of other people’s conclusion is going to be the main conclusion of the argument. To confirm that it’s the conclusion here, we just need to keep reading and see the word “because” right after “they are wrong.” Why are the horse breeders wrong?

...because, in most cases, the severity of the disease can be controlled by diet and medication, and the defect also produces horses of extreme beauty that are in great demand in the horse show industry.

Those are reasons offered for why the horse breeders are wrong, which confirms that “The horse breeders are wrong” is the conclusion.

Let’s look for something that best expresses “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”

Answer Choice (A) Racehorses that have the genetic defect need not be prevented from racing.

This might be tempting if you read fast, because everything up until the last word is good. But the conclusion is about whether the horses should be allowed to breed, not whether they should be allowed to race. Nobody in the stimulus brought up whether the horses should be allowed to race.

Correct Answer Choice (B) There should not be an absolute ban on breeding racehorses that have the genetic defect.

This is another way to say that “It should be OK for horses with the genetic defect to breed.”

Some people might be thrown off by the phrase “absolute ban,” since that didn’t appear anywhere in the stimulus. If you’re one of them, keep in mind two things. First, remember that the LSAT isn’t a test of word-matching; you have to focus on meaning. Second, how you deal with ambiguity is one of the things you’re being tested on – can you recognize a reasonable interpretation of a statement, even if it’s not the one you first saw, or one you think is the best?

So, how do these points relate to this answer choice? The horse breeders’ conclusion – that horses with the defect should not be bred – is arguably a call for an absolute ban. I say “arguably” because you could also interpret it as merely a recommendation concerning what’s good or bad to do, without committing the horse breeders to any belief about real world breeding policy. For example, I might believe that people should not drink soda, but that doesn’t automatically mean that I think we should implement a ban on drinking soda. If you eliminated (B) because of “absolute ban,” you were probably thinking about this distinction.

But how would you interpret this statement?: “Foods known to be poisonous should not be served at our school cafeteria.” Are you thinking, “That’s just a recommendation about what should not be done, but it’s not actually advocating for a ban on serving poisonous foods at the cafeteria”?

What about this?: “Convicted sex offenders should not live within 500 meters of a school.” Is that merely a recommendation? – “Hey, convicted sex offender, you shouldn’t be doing that! That’s not a good idea!” Probably not. I think almost everyone would see this as advocating for a ban.

The point of these examples is to show that the horse breeders’ conclusion – “[H]orses with this defect should not be bred” – can be read as advocating for a ban. The LSAT is asking us to recognize that it is one reasonable interpretation, even if you don’t believe it’s the only one.

By the way, even if you’re still convinced that “absolute ban” makes this answer defective, you still have to apply the same level of scrutiny to the other four answers, which have even more glaring defects. For you, (B) might fall short of the ideal answer, but it’s still the right answer compared to the other four.

With that in mind, if we understand the horse breeders to be saying that there should be a ban on breeding of horses with the genetic defect, then (B) fits very well as the author’s conclusion. The author is disagreeing – there shouldn’t be a ban. (B) is the correct answer.

By the way, if you were OK with the word “ban” but got rid of (B) because you thought “absolute” was too extreme, then consider this statement: “There should be a ban on racial discrimination in hiring.” Are you thinking, “Hmm, that didn’t use the word ‘absolute,’ so it’s actually just saying there should be a partial ban on racial discrimination in hiring.” Probably not. A ban, by default, is absolute. Now, it is possible for there to be a partial ban (a ban with some exceptions). But you’d have to add the word “partial” to describe that kind of ban, or else people would think we’re talking about an absolute ban. This is why there’s nothing wrong with (B)’s use of “absolute ban.” The author thinks there shouldn’t be a ban on breeding horses with the genetic defect. That means they think there shouldn’t be an absolute ban. In other words, we should at least sometimes be allowed to breed the horses with the genetic defect.

Answer Choice (C) Racehorses that are severely afflicted with the disease have not been provided with the proper diet.

This might be tempting if you forgot about our task. We’re just trying to identify the main conclusion. So even if you think (C) is supported by the stimulus, that still wouldn’t make it the correct answer. The part of the stimulus that’s about controlling diet in order to reduce the severity of the disease is part of the reasoning – it supports the conclusion that horses with the genetic defect should be allowed to breed.

Answer Choice (D) The best way to produce racehorses of extreme beauty is to breed horses that have the genetic defect.

(D) starts off wrong with “best way.” The stimulus only said that breeding horses with the genetic defect was one way to produce horses of extreme beauty. But it’s not necessarily the best way. Even if the stimulus had said that, this would still be wrong because it’s not the conclusion. The part about extreme beauty was a premise offered to support the conclusion.

Answer Choice (E) There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise.

This answer might be tempting because the first half sounds like exactly what we want – “There should be no prohibition against breeding racehorses…” But in the second half, it all goes wrong. The author’s conclusion wasn’t referring to “racehorses that have any disease that can be controlled by diet and exercise.” It was specifically referring to racehorses that have the genetic defect described in the first sentence. There shouldn’t be a prohibition on breeding horses with that particular genetic defect.

Another reason to get rid of (E) is that it refers to “diet and exercise”. The stimulus only said that “diet and medication” could help control the severity of the disease; exercise wasn’t mentioned.