Pedigree dogs

Alright! So you've clearly identified two conclusions: " certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs," and "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs." Now you need to decide which is the subsidiary conclusion. A subsidiary conclusion is a sentence that serves both as a premise and a conclusion. So we need to see which conclusion supports the other. The phrase, "certain traits...dogs," is one of the reasons why "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs." Therefore, the first conclusion supports the second one. Remember that the main conclusion of the argument does not support any sentence in the argument. Therefore, the claim is merely a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion. (A) is incorrect because the claim is supported by the clauses before it, "Since dog breeders try to maintain only those traits specified by pedigree organizations, and traits that breeders do not try to maintain risk being lost," and because the argument does not depend on it. If you nix the claim, the argument does not fall apart and therefore, it is not needed. (C) is incorrect because the claim supports the main conclusion; it is not an objection. (D) is incorrect for the same reason (C) is, the claim supports the main conclusion, rather than discredits it. (E) is incorrect because the claim does not support something stated earlier, but rather, the main conclusion stated at the end. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions!

I'm also confused. Other than process of elimination there aren't any structural indicators that would lead me to think this was a subsidiary conclusion. How can we identify these sorts of elusive subsidiary conclusions?

As mentioned above, the sentence referred to in the question stem works as a premise for the main conclusion that "pedigree organizations should set standards requiring working ability in pedigreed dogs classified as working dogs." Remember, a subsidiary conclusion is a sentence that serves both as a premise and conclusion. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any more questions.

That does make the question clearer - why is this considered a Subsidiary Conclusion and not just a Premise

Actually I think I get it - by eliminating the other answers in a way it turns the statement into a subsidiary conclusion because a premise is the same thing - it's clearly a premise and so calling it a subsidiary Conclusion basically just throws the reader a curve and so we're looking for some kind of proof that there's a Conclusion clue but in reality it's a premise and there's no special identification- please let me know if this logic is correct?

How do you determine that it is a subsidiarily conclusion, rather than just a premise. Are there any indicators that would help/give us a clue that it is more than just a premise?