A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.

This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

Because the correct answers to PSAr questions so often follow the Premise → Conclusion pattern, separating premises and conclusions from context is a crucial time-saver. Everything before “However” is context. Here’s the core argument:

Premise 1: For most treat-trained dogs, if you don’t show a treat, they won’t obey commands.
Premise 2: You can’t always have treats on hand.
Conclusion: You should use the praise and verbal correction method instead.

(Note: for Premise 1, I translated the “unless” claim into “if, then” form for ease of reading.)

Our principle just needs to fit the following mold: “[Something about the treat-training method] makes it bad enough that [you should use another method instead].”

We find a solid match for that in the answer choices, so I’ll leave the anticipation here rather than spoiling it.