Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 31 Aug 2016, 20:44

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 180
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2007, 16:41
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (01:51) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners request. They claims that the decrease in the number of stray animals to contend with will offset the costs of the funding. These people fail to realize that over 80 percent of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals, so there will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if funding is provided.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city

(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 384
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2007, 12:40
B seems the best of the lot
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2007, 13:08
I would say B as well.

where did you get this question? doesn't seem very structured?
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 440
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2007, 00:05
I vote for B
C is tempting, but the key-word is "at the owners request"
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 254
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2007, 08:34
B.

This question is full of double negatives that you must cut out. The question is asking to weaken the statement "the payment will decrease the # of stray animals."
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 892 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2010, 05:57
could anybody elaborate on this one a bit more?
thanks
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2010, 06:22
Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners request. They claims that the decrease in the number of stray animals to contend with will offset the costs of the funding. These people fail to realize that over 80 percent of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals, so there will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if funding is provided.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
This strengthens the argument.

(C) The only way the number of stray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
This strengthens the argument.

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
This strengthens the argument as even if funding is provided some people will not be getting their pets neutered.

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
This strengthens the argument as even if funding is provided some people will not be getting their pets neutered.

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city
This is the only option in favor of city funding for neutering of pets.

So i go with option B.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Re: CR question   [#permalink] 26 Sep 2010, 06:22
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 The city government should invest surplus funds in improving 22 11 Apr 2010, 02:02
1 The city government should invest surplus funds in improving 16 08 Jul 2008, 05:20
Observatory director: Some say that funding the 10 25 Mar 2008, 08:35
The city government should invest surplus funds in improving 14 16 Jul 2007, 19:04
19 The city government should invest surplus funds in 14 04 Nov 2006, 10:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by