Pitbull is a breed of dog, so why is it saying that “a dog is a pitbull because of what it does not because of its breed?”

This is Question One for the Main Point Questions.

Please answer

I don't think that it matters. Just recognize that it is an invalid argument. But, yes, only pay attention to what you get in the question not outside knowledge.

Basically you're saying is that everything we read on the LSAT is reality and that we should not use the real-world to apply what we read? Because if we were to apply the real world, the whole basis of the argument would not be true. A Pitbull is a Pitbull because of its breed. A German Shepard is a German Shepard because of its breed. This has nothing to do with "what it does".

If statements (premises) are mentioned as facts on the LSAT LR section, then we just accept them as facts. It's irrelevant if they are true in real life or not. Let's look at the following statements: My phone is a brick. All bricks are red. Therefore, my phone is red. This is not true, but it is logically sound, so it would be valid.

I agree, I almost find this question to be offensive because of the stereotypes for pit bulls. Just saying this is a poor play on words I guess