PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 2
Many of those who are most opposed to(62 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- ALoving pets requires(6 more words not shown)
- BMany of those(17 more words not shown)
- CSome people who(14 more words not shown)
- DMany popular pets(5 more words not shown)
- EFeeding meat to(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Feeding your dog meat is one thing. Contributing to cruelty is another. Where did we connect the two?
The author tells us that many people who strongly oppose animal cruelty keep pets, and that dogs and cats are usually fed meat. Then comes the accusation: many of these opponents of cruelty contribute to it themselves. I can see where the author wants to go, but the evidence hasn't yet said that supplying this meat involves cruelty. We shouldn't quietly supply that missing claim just because the accusation sounds familiar.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument makes. I'd predict a connection between feeding meat to pets and contributing to animal cruelty. Without that connection, the information about what dogs and cats eat gives us no basis for the accusation. We're examining what this argument needs, not deciding whether keeping pets or eating meat is right.
Working the answers
- A
Loving every form of animal life isn't the missing connection. Someone could love all animals, or only certain animals, and we'd still need to explain how feeding a pet contributes to cruelty. A changes the scope of the person's love without connecting the action to its alleged effect.
- B
These people oppose keeping dogs and cats as pets. The argument concerns people who keep pets while opposing cruelty. What pet-ownership opponents believe doesn't show that the pet owners contribute to cruelty by feeding their animals.
- C
The personal views of laboratory, slaughterhouse, or farm workers don't establish the effect of feeding meat to pets. Workers could oppose cruelty or support it, and we'd still need the same missing link in the argument about pet owners.
- D
Other pets might not be fed meat. That doesn't address the accusation about people whose dogs and cats are fed meat, and it doesn't connect that feeding to cruelty. The author doesn't need to assume that every popular pet eats meat.
- ECorrect
This supplies the link: feeding meat to pets contributes to animal cruelty. Now the fact about what these pets eat has a connection to the conclusion about what their owners contribute to. If feeding them meat made no contribution to cruelty, the author's stated evidence would lose its basis for that accusation.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.