A study showed that only ten percent of American dog owners enroll th

For sure we have to choose B. It is the only valid option.
And GMAT likes the word "representative" )

But why I do not like even B. There is nothing said about proportion of dog owners who do not train their dogs and participate in dog shows. How much? 0%, 1%, 50%? Nothing about comparison.

Can you explain option B in detail . it seems a little confusing

Please provide a detailed explanation which talks about all the answer choices. Thank you.

-----------------------
A study showed that only ten percent of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than twenty 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 statements is also 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 outside such classes.

(C) Dog owners who participate in dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience training 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.
-----------------------

I understand it this way.

Conclusion: 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.

Question: The conclusion above is correct provided which of the following statements is also true?

Answer: (B) The proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes.

Imagine that there are 100 participants in the dog show in America in 2018.
45 of them took obediance class. It is representative of the the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes. So number of participants that are trained outside these classes (by owners themselves or by coaches or whatever) is of that order (45) - something similar (20, 30, 40, 45, 50)
So the sum will be more than 50 of 100 and this means that number of such participants is more than a half. It is what wee need.

Now imagine that proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is NOT representative of the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes.
There are 100 participants in the dog show in America in 2018. 45 of them took obediance class. Because it is not representative the number of participants who is trained outside these classes can be 0,1,2
And the sum is less than 50 - less than half - conclusion breaks apart.

So we choose B.

Why this is bad option from the other side and it is not a great question?
Because:
Imagine again that there are 100 participants in the dog show in America in 2018.
10 of them took obediance class. It is representative of the the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes. So number of participants that are trained outside these classes (by owners themselves or by coaches or whatever) is of that order (10) - something similar (5, 9, 15, 19)
The sum will be less than 50 - less than a half.

Because we know nothing about the number/proportion of dog owners who do not train their dogs.

Decided to describe options in individual post.

Conclusion: 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.

Question: The conclusion above is correct provided which of the following statements is also 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.
This is so strong statement. It means that only dogs, who were trained in special classes can participate in these shows.
So there are no untrained in these classes dogs in the shows.
Thus if A is true the conclusion will be also true.
But this option is too strong. It [color=#0000ff]need not to be true to conclusion to be true.

[/color]
(B) The proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes.
discussed above

(C) Dog owners who participate in dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience training lessons.
It can be 5 such dog owners and 95 dog owners who do not train their dogs at all. Does not pass

(D) Participation in dog shows is a reliable indicator of how much attention a dog owner pays to his dog.
Totally out of scope.

(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.
it is out of scope and moreover weakens the conclusion

Got to B via PoE but I am not fully happy with the reasoning provided so far.

Any of the gurus care to explain?

Hello Expert,
Kindly explain the meaning of option B.

Thank you.

There's a bit of a problem with this one. The question stem is asking for an answer that would make the argument completely correct. This is a Sufficient Assumption question, something we normally only see on the LSAT. The problem, though, is that answer choice B is not sufficient. It is a necessary assumption, but it doesn't prove the argument correct.

It's necessary because the premise is about people who take their dogs in for formal training classes, but the conclusion is about ALL people who train their dogs. If people who train their dogs WITHOUT classes don't do dog shows, then perhaps the general population of people who train their dogs is NOT more likely to do dog shows. It's like if I had a premise about couples who renew their wedding vows, and then made a conclusion about all people who remain committed to their marriages. If the small group who renew their vows was not like the others, then we couldn't use them to make a conclusion.

So that's ONE problem with the argument, and that's why B is the best answer. (The rest are no good at all.) But the argument has another problem, and it's a big one. We have no idea what percent of dog owners who do NOT train their dogs also participate in dog shows. What if, say , 60% of people who do NOT train their dogs choose to do shows? Then the conclusion would be blown to bits--it would appear that trainers were LESS likely than others to do shows. This is a glaring hole in the argument, so B doesn't deliver the goods and make the conclusion correct. That leaves us without a valid answer. (One might wonder how you'd do a dog show without training your dog, but that's outside the scope of the argument. If that option isn't possible, then there's no need for the conclusion in the first place.)

As usual, we're better off studying verbal with official questions . . .

Easy one. took me less than 2 minutes


A study showed that only ten percent of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than twenty 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 statements is also 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. ( we dont know this)

(B) The proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes. CORRECT if 10 dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes and from them 3 dog owners participate in dog shows. But how about others dogs ? dog competion can be limited to 3 dogs. there are other dog owners as well who participate in dog shows, but they train their dogs outside of classes.

(C) Dog owners who participate in dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience training lessons. (no, this is false info)

(D) Participation in dog shows is a reliable indicator of how much attention a dog owner pays to his dog. (cant be assumed)

(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.

(out of scope)

can someone explain bit more in details why is C not correct and why is B correct

This question makes no sense to me and the explanations for why B is correct and A and C are not correct do not seem substantiated.

If A were true then the likelihood that an untrained dog participated in a show is 0% and since we know that at least some formally trained dogs did participate in shows necessarily means that the likelihood of trained dogs participating is greater than those that did not get trained.

If C were true then this also means that the likelihood of untrained dogs participating in a show is 0% because ALL that do participate in shows are trained.

B does not say anything about how the proportions of trained dogs, whether formally trained or not, relates to untrained dogs.

Someone please explain why this reasoning is wrong because it obviously is and I’d hate to get a question like this wrong on the test.

Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

I'll stand by my earlier statement that this is not a great problem, but on second look, it seems that A actually does work. What's important to notice here is that we want a statement that makes the conclusion true. We're not looking for something that IS true (an inference) or NEEDS to be true (a necessary assumption). The folks who eliminated A above were using one of those two criteria, neither of which applies here.

Technically, if we read A as saying that NO ONE who doesn't train their dog can even do a dog show, then the conclusion has to be correct. It's like saying "Women are more likely than men to give birth." If men can't give birth, but some number of women (any number >0) do, then it has to be true.

As for C, that's still out. While the argument does assume an equivalence between FORMAL training and ANY sort of training (as addressed in B and very effectively sidestepped in A), filling in this gap does not PROVE the argument correct. With C in place, it's still possible that some people who do dog shows don't train their dogs at all. The use of the word "only" in C places a restriction on HOW dogs are trained, not WHETHER they are trained.

We are told 10% enroll their dogs in classes. We are told 20% of those put their dogs in shows (We are supposed to assume this rate is higher than it is for those who don’t put their dogs in training classes, although the question doesn’t actually say that). Then, it is asserted that this shows those who train their dogs are more likely to put their dogs in dog shows than those who don’t.

The answer is B because that conclusion is only true if the people who train their dogs outside of classes are putting their dogs in shows at similarly rates to those who train their dogs in class. If there are people training their dogs on their own and hardly any of them put dogs in shows, then it’s not true that those who train their dogs are more likely to put them in dog shows.

The trick in this question is it appears to ask you to look at two categories of people, those who train and those who don’t, and evaluate whether one category is more likely to put dogs in shows. But it’s sneakily asking you to look at two categories and one subcategory. The first category is those who don’t train and the second is those who do. That second category has a subcategory, those who train in classes. You need to spot that not everything that is true of this subcategory is true about the whole category.

Posted from my mobile device

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

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.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.