Asad
I have a query on this question..
We should never keep our eyes on statement 2 when we check statement 1, right? So, how will someone know that there are 2 segment (i.e., cows VS non-cows) without reading statement 2?
Because some "animals" are not "cows". An animal might be a parrot or a donkey or an iguana or a fish. That's not something a question needs to tell a test taker.
Asad
Statement 1 directly says that 100%. That means there is nothing "left". So, why do we not consider statement 1 sufficient (apart from statement 2)? I mean: What's the wrong with someone if s/he takes all 50 animals as 'cows' group?
If Statement 1 said "100% of animals won prizes", it would be sufficient. But it doesn't say that. It only talks about some of the animals, the cows.
If someone did assume all 50 animals were cows, that person would be assuming something you don't know to be true; you don't know how all the animals are cows. So that person would be using more information than the question provides, and would thus be making a logical mistake.
Asad
Note: Question prompt did not separate "animals" as 'cows' VS 'non-cows'. If statement 1 use 99% then we can think of another groups (i.e., non-cows). Also What if there is just 1 animal in the question prompt?
Thanks__
Statement 1 can't use 99%, since that's mathematically impossible with only 50 animals in total (you'd get a decimal number of cows, which is impossible).
If there were only 1 animal in total, Statement 2 wouldn't make any sense. Statement 1 alone would be sufficient in that case, because there can't be zero cows (it doesn't make sense to say "100% of cows won prizes" if there are no cows at all). So you could then conclude that the one animal in question is a cow, and that it won a prize. But you'd never see that situation on the GMAT, so there's no reason to worry about it.