Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and

The correct answer is option (B).

Let us understand why.

Understanding the passage:
1. Opponent of Funding:
a) Some people favour city funding for spaying/neutering of pets, at the request of owners
b) They claim that cost of funding is counter-balanced by the reduced cost of handling stray animals (due to the reduction of stray animals due to neutering)

Logic: Spaying/Neutering of pets => these pets will not breed animals that will end up as strays => Reduction in number of strays

c) These people (some people) do not realise that 80% of pet owners already pay to spay/neuter their pets
d) i.e. Even without funding, 80% of pet owners spay their pets with their own money, so there will not be a significant decrease in number of stray animals, even if funding is provided

Logic: At max, this funding will get the remaining 20% to spay their pets, but this is not a significant enough number to causea reduction in strays.

Question: Find the one statement which is not a strengthener.

Conclusion:
Funding for spaying/neutering to pet owners will not lead to a reduction in the number of strays.

We should find the one statement in the options that does not strengthen the above conclusion.

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
If this is true, then spaying/neutering pets is not useful -> then funding for spaying/neutering is not useful -> strengthens the conclusion.

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
if this is true, then
Funding -> more pet owners getting their pets neutered sooner -> Reducing the time available for pets to reproduce and breed more strays -> Reduction in strays -> weakens the conclusion.

Here Funding -> reduction in strays. This weakens our conclusion (Funding -x> Reduction of strays). Hence this is the correct answer.

(C) The only way the number of sray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
If this is true, the it means that pets are not the main reason for the number of strays -> Spaying/neutering spays will not help much to reduce #Strays -> Funding for neutering will not help #Strays -> Strengthens the conclusion.

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
If this is true, then even with Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - it is morally wrong!) -> pets may breed more strays -> number of strays will not reduce -> Strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
If this is true, then
1. This means majority (>50%) of pets that are yet to be spayed will not be spayed even with funding (these pets are kept for breeding)
2. Pets are of 2 types - 1. Already spayed -> cannot produce strays
2. Not spayed -> but these will not contribute to strays (majority)
3. What the above means is that the number of strays is not decided by pets, but decided by other factors (probably number of strays)

Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - these pets are kept for breeding) -> these pets will breed but will not produce strays, while other pets are already spayed, will not produce strays -> number of strays will not reduce because of funding (because of no actual impact) -> strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)

Cheers!