Question #989

pedigree dog answer doesn't make sense to me

Started by Kemp · started 2022-10-13 07:00 · last activity 2022-10-16 23:31 · 1 reply

A subsidiary conclusion is not in my opinion what gets stated here. It is an example of something previous stated. Which at least to me looks like support. premise: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, Example: certain traits like herding ability risk being lost among pedigreed dogs. How is this example a subsidiary conclusion. It just an example of a previous premise that's mentioned? It honestly just looks like more support for the claim that, "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," Someone explain this to me please.

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-10-16 23:31

    Hi Kemp, the two previous two sentences dir3vlty support the statement you consider to be an example. We could say "breeders try to maintain only the things specified by pedigree organizations, and if breeders do not maintain a trait it risks being lost, therefore traits like herding risk being lost. The former statement provides support for the latter. That statement in turn is used to support the idea that organizations should set different standards

Sign in to reply.