The number of stray dogs picked up in Ford City last year by the city's dog catchers was fifty percent lower than the previous year's figure. The Mayor of Ford City attributed this decline to the city's recent crackdown on unlicensed breeders that breed dogs dangerously fast and release any unwanted puppies on the streets. Over a dozen operators of these so called "puppy farms" have been incarcerated over the last year in Ford City.

Each of the following, if true, could weaken the Mayor's conclusion that the decline in the number of stray dogs picked up by the city's dog catchers is due to the crackdown on "puppy farms" EXCEPT:

A. Agange City, located right next to Ford City, also experienced a fifty percent decline in the number of stray dogs caught on its streets by its dog catchers, but did not engage in a crackdown on puppy farms in that city.

B. Ford City cut the budget for dog catching one year ago, forcing the firing of over half of the Dog Catching Department's staff.

C.The past winter was bitterly cold in Ford City, causing many unprotected stray animals to perish.

D. One year ago, a privately funded organization began rounding up stray dogs in Ford City and putting them up for adoption on the internet.

E. Ford City already had tough laws to punish operators of "puppy farms" long before the most recent year.

E. E strengthens the argument

Now the issue is: which answer strengthens Mayor's conclusion that the decline in the number of stray dogs picked up by the city's dog catchers is due to the crackdown on "puppy farms"



A. Agange City, located right next to Ford City, also experienced a fifty percent decline in the number of stray dogs caught on its streets by its dog catchers, but did not engage in a crackdown on puppy farms in that city.
Other city reduced without crackdown on puppy farms, does it strengthens ..NO

B. Ford City cut the budget for dog catching one year ago, forcing the firing of over half of the Dog Catching Department's staff.

Now here i am confused, If the no. of men in dog catching squad was reduced then how the no. of puppies has reduced, It must be because there was a crack down on puppy farmers
will have to check

C.The past winter was bitterly cold in Ford City, causing many unprotected stray animals to perish.
Weakens.. not because of crackdown

D. One year ago, a privately funded organization began rounding up stray dogs in Ford City and putting them up for adoption on the internet.
weakens.. again suggests the other cause of reduction in no.

E. Ford City already had tough laws to punish operators of "puppy farms" long before the most recent year.

Already had tough laws to punish, not convincing but only one in +ve

so confused b/w B & E

I would go with B.

E states that City already had tough laws to punish puppy farms, so it's reasonable to infer that any extra crackdown will not change the situation significantely. Hence, it's weakens the argument - dicline is NOT due to crackdown.
But B looks a bit out of scope - for sure it doesn't weaken the argument. B states that catchers are halved recentely. Hence we should expact increase in stray dogs rather than decline. So, it should be another cause, which led to decline. And it could be due to crackdown. B does NOT weaken. My answer is B.

Answer should be A.


Here the question is "Each of the following, if true, could weaken the Mayor's conclusion that the decline in the number of stray dogs picked up by the city's dog catchers is due to the crackdown on "puppy farms" EXCEPT. It doesn,t mean that question asked is strengthen question.

OA is E

Can somebody explain where I'm wrong with B.

B states the number of catchers have halved recentely --> the number of stray dogs should increase. But we observe decline in stray dogs --> another reason should exist, for example, crackdown. Hence, B doesn't weaken.

IMO still for A as A clearly not weaken the argument... Want to know the source of the question and official explanation if available

well where you went wrong is, only the no. of stray dogs caught went down by 50% not the no. of stray dogs itself..

E seems like the right choice here. Remember, the opposite of weaken gives us two options: (1) strengthen and (2) neutral. In other words, the logical opposite of weaken is "not weaken." Strengthen is the polar opposite of weaken, but between these two extremes is a neutral category. Option E, I think, niether strengthens nor weakens the argument; it's neutral, which qualifies it as an opposite of weaken.

Choice A is tempting, but the cities are right next to eachother. The two cities will most likely share some characteristics. Agange City's experience with dog reductions should cast some doubt on the mayor's assertions.
_________________

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates