A study showed that only ten percent of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than 20 percent of these dog owners, the study also showed, participate in dog shows. Thus, it is obvious that people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than are people who do not train their dogs.
The conclusion above is correct provided which of the following is true?
A) It is impossible for a dog to compete in a dog show if the dog has not completed at least one formal obedience training class
B) The proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outsied such classes
C) Dog owners who participate in the dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience trainig lessons
D) Participation in dog shows is a reliable indicator of how much attention a dog owner pays to his dog
E) Only purebred dogs can participate in dog shows, so many owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes are excluded from this activity.
B The statement draws a conclusion about people who train their dogs based on statistics relating only to people who take their dogs for formal obedience training classes. In order for the statement to be correct, then, these statistics must be valid for all people who train their dogs, not only those who train them in formal classes. Choice B plugs this hole in the argument, thus making the conclusion necessarily true.
I have a problem with this question. It says:
10% of dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes
20% < of these dog owners, the study also showed, participate in dog shows.
First of all, it is ambigious which dog owners these refers too, is it american dog owners or dog owners that enroll their dogs in obedience training. That issue aside, we will just assume they mean american dog owners.
If thats the case, I don't see how the answer B makes the conclusion correct at all. Basically statement B says that 10 % of dog owners train their dogs outside of formal obedience.
This means we now have the following we have 20% of dog owners train their dogs, more than 20% participate in dog shows, therefore people who train their dogs are more likely to be in dog shows than people who don't.
This does not make their conclusion correct. It means that they at least use something in their conclusion that was stated in statistics, but the conclusion is no more correct than it was.
Basically, just because 20% of people train their dog, doesn't mean you can conclude that they are more likely to show their dogs than other people are.
What are peoples thoughts? Am I missing something or is this just a poorly written Princeton Review