Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 3 · Question 6

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Owners are the primary factor in dog behavior, not breeding. Breed-specific laws can't address the owners, so these laws can't protect people from vicious dogs. (Also, the current laws are fine.)

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is interesting in that it has a lot of statements that sound like conclusions. For instance, the opening line could definitely serve as a conclusion, with support showing the importance of home environment over breed. However, there is no such evidence offered. The following statement, similarly, could be supported by some examples. (And if you viewed this as support for the first statement, viewing that as an intermediate conclusion, then you're not necessarily off base). The third statement is more of a statement of fact, so that's less likely to be a conclusion, but it is in a bit of a different topic area than the first two.

However, then the argument moves on to a statement that's clearly a conclusion. The next statement starts with, "As a result," which establishes that the preceding statements are support for it. That also makes sense logically—owners being more important than breeding supports that breed-specific legislation, which can't address the behavior of owners, can't protect the public from vicious dogs. This is a conclusion of the argument.

And then we get a bit of an oddity—the argument throws a, "Moreover," in. What does that mean? In general, it's going to be used the same as the word, "Besides." It's going to introduce a related idea that's going to be thrown out there by the author without much support. So this answer is essentially an appendix for the argument—not the part of the book, the part of the body. It's extraneous and thus not the main point.

Therefore, we should look for an answer stating that the argument's main point is that breed-specific legislation can't protect the public from vicious dogs.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the main point of the argument, introduced by the conclusion indicator phrase "As a result" and supported by the preceding statements.

Key Takeaway:
Know your structural indicator keywords. Love your structural indicator keywords. And when you come across one that you haven't seen before or are unsure of, be sure to look it up and see how the LSAT has used it. For example, here, "Moreover" didn't introduce the main point, so that's an important thing to know about that word.

Incorrect. This answer is the opening line, which ended up supporting the main point. It's a premise (or arguably an intermediate conclusion).

Incorrect. This answer is the sentence immediately preceding the main point. Any statement that's followed up with, "As a result," will be a premise!

Incorrect. This answer is a premise (either supporting the main point or an intermediate conclusion).

Incorrect. This answer isn't stated in the argument, supported by it, or assumed by it, so it can't be the main point! (If anything, it's suggested that the laws do address the human behavior, since that's what the Citizen thinks is key and she believes that the current laws are adequate.)