Question #1164

Please offer comments on these thoughts

Started by Matt12 · started 2022-10-14 16:59 · last activity 2022-10-15 18:03 · 1 reply

A, "Most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dog's general well-being"...... That doesn't mean people aren't going to get the surgeries anyway. Compare to: C, “Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life spans than do nonpurebred dogs”….. If a dog doesn’t live as long, it can be assumed that he won’t incur as big as a health bill as the dog would have had the dog lived a long life, demonstrating one reason the conclusion might be wrong, weakening the argument. Okay, fine, choice C makes an assumption. The problem is that choice A does as well. Its assumes that just because an abnormality doesn’t seriously affect the dog’s health, that people won’t get their dogs surgeries. It’s a fair assumption, but so is the assumption of choice C. I don’t like these questions that essentially have us subjectively decide which choice is the “most reasonable assumption”.

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-10-15 18:03

    Hi Matt, The question here is which assumptions we have to make for A and C. For A, we only have to assume that people are less likely to get surgery for an animal that isn't bothered by a minor abnormality. This is almost common sense, sure some may, but there's no reason to force your dog to get surgery for something that doesn't bother it. C requires a huge assumption, and frankly, one that is counterintuitive. There is no reason to believe that a dig that lives shorter will have fewer vet bills. In fact, we could make a strong argument the opposite is true. A dog that is less healthy will live less long, and have greater vet bills as a result.

Sign in to reply.