A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

Question

A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group. Their finding was based on a study showing that the majority of all dog bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13. The study also found that the dogs most likely to bite are German shepherds, males, and non-neutered dogs.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians' conclusion that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group?

(A) More than half of dog bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older.

(B) The majority of dog bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older.

(C) Many serious dog bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by female dogs, neutered dogs, and dogs that are not German shepherds.

(D) Most dog bites of children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear.

(E) Most parents can learn to treat dog bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

DhaSuk · Answer

Option (A) weakens the conclusion by stating that more than half of all dog bites do not require medical attention, and these uncounted bites primarily involve people aged 13 and older. By revealing a massive group of victims ignored by the pediatricians' methodology, Option (A) breaks the link between "needing medical attention" and "being bitten overall," meaning children under 13 may not actually be the most-bitten age group.

MehakKaushal · Answer

(A) ✅ Weakens
Most bites not requiring medical attention involve people 13+.
Shows that the study looked at only a subset of all bites.
Directly attacks the conclusion about all dog bites.
(B) ❌ Talks about deaths from dog bites. Severity, not frequency.
(C) ❌ Talks about the types of dogs that bite children. Doesn't address whether children are bitten more often than other age groups.
(D) ❌ Says children's bites are less serious than they seem. Still doesn't tell us who gets bitten most often.
(E) ❌ Talks about parents treating bites. Irrelevant to the frequency of bites by age group.
Answer: (A). The argument assumes medically treated bites represent all bites; (A) shows they may not.

vasu1104 · Answer

majority of all dog bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13.

conclusion= dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group.

just because children under age 13 comes for medical treatment more than others, they made this particular conclusion mentioned in passage
but what if people older than 13 are being bitten but don't go for treatment but rather take care of it themselves.
then conclusion breaks down.

A this exactly says what I wrote above. people above 13 are the ones who had been victim but doesnt require attention. so this clearly weaken the conclusion. keep.
B this is not relevant here and target wrong group with wrong effects. so out.
C not bothered by which gender bites the children or adults. out.
D wrong comparison of seriousness of dog bites. going in other directions. reject.
E completely irrelevant.

ans A

liame · Answer

Conclusion: dogs are more likely to bite kids under 13

Logical link: line 2 → conclusion

If more than 50% (majority) of dog bites requiring medical attention are taken into consideration,

→ how can we say that majority dog bites are with kids < 13

There can be many cases with diff age grp NOT requiring medical attn. or there can be OTHER dogs.

Attack: dogs are not more likely to bite children under age 13.

I chose A because it also focused upon the medical attention part.

Because in B → if a dog bite resulted in death, it would come under medical attention.

GmatTest2026 · Answer

Fact 1: Based on findings, the majority of all dog bites requiring medical attention involved children under age 13.

Fact 2: The dogs that most likely bite are German shepherds, males, and non-neutered dogs.

Conclusion: Dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group.

In a weak question, we always attack the argument's assumption. Here, the assumption is that among the seriously reported cases, there are no other age groups except those under age 13.

(A) More than half of dog bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older. Correct. Yes, this option directly attacks the assumption as it states that there are unreported cases and are 13 and older.

(B) The majority of dog bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older. Incorrect. This choice brings new information that is not discussed in the passage.

(C) Many serious dog bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by female dogs, neutered dogs, and dogs that are not German shepherds. Incorrect. This choice takes the argument in a different direction.

(D) Most dog bites of children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear. Incorrect. This choice is irrelevant.

(E) Most parents can learn to treat dog bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information. Incorrect. This choice stretches the argument too far. Hence, doesn't weaken.

Option A

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

We don't have to look far for the conclusion in this one—it's restated right in the question stem: Dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group. The evidence is found in the second sentence dealing with the findings in the study. The last sentence expands on the study, but essentially adds nothing of value to the logic of the stimulus; it's basically "filler" material. So what's the scope shift? The conclusion is about dogs biting children under 13, but the evidence is based on dog bites requiring medical attention. (A) weakens the argument by addressing this scope shift. It basically says that many dog bites that don't require medical attention (bites that are within the scope of the conclusion) happen to people over 13. Now, this doesn't disprove the argument; it merely weakens the link between the stated evidence and the stated conclusion. The pediatricians counted up all the people bitten by dogs who came in for medical attention, found most of them to be under age 13, and concluded from this alone that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13. This general conclusion is based on evidence about a very specific group. If it's true, as (A) says, that many who don't seek treatment are over 13, then the argument is weakened.  (A) it is.

An 800 test taker has a sure-fire method for spotting scope shifts. She asks herself:

1) What's the focus, subject, or scope of the conclusion?
2) What's the focus, subject, or scope of the evidence?
3) Are they the same?

(B) We're not concerned with the results of the dog bites, only the frequency of bites by age group. Even if everyone over 65 dies as a result of being bitten, it could still be true that children under 13 are most likely to be bitten.

(C) is a takeoff on the filler sentence: Once again, it's the sheer number of bites that's important, not the kinds of dogs inflicting them.

(D) Same thing: The number of bites, not the seriousness of them, is the issue.

(E) is irrelevant; what can happen plays no role in the study and the conclusion based on it.

A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards