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.

Our goal here is to build a bridge between the premises and the conclusion so that the conclusion is logically guaranteed if the premises (plus the sufficient assumption) are true. Here, because the conclusion jumps to a value judgment, the correct answer must also include a value judgment. We want an answer that tells us pedigree organizations should set standards that prevent working dogs' working traits from being lost.

There are many ways that this could be phrased; what's important is that the correct answer must take us from the premises to the conclusion. It must guarantee the logical validity of the argument.