Dogs that eat late at night do so multiple times disturbing the sleep

Choice A: The given statement can just be looked upon as corelation between 2 ideas given.
Choice D: Reinforces the Salesman Statement

"The salesman assures that the device would solve his problem if the provided instructions are adhered to stringently"

To reinforce salesman statement : D is correct as D support the argument. "food at the pre-set location has conditioned their dogs to go to the location when hungry"

But A is not supporting the statement and providing a negative answer as "dissatisfaction with the provided instructions".

According to me, A is not a potential answer choice as it just states that not following the instructions lead to customer dissatisfaction, Hence we cannot prove the vice-versa,

But in D it states that following the instructions lead to changing the dog's behavioral pattern, Instead of barking dog goes to the preset location for food when it's hungry

How people are saying that A can be the answer?I did not even considered it in my choice while solving.I found d smooth.Can anyone please explain am i missing something?

chill, it goes opposite since we are given "if the provided instructions are adhered to stringently." so and so will happen but A talks when the instructions are not followed strictly so what happens in that case the salesman never promised. its irrelevant

Option A weakens the argument but we need to strengthen it

MartyMurray GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo KarishmaB

Can you explain why D is correct.

D. Users of the device reported that following the provided instructions that included placing ample food at the pre-set location has conditioned their dogs to go to the location when hungry.

Per premise 'car travels to a pre-set location'. Am i supposed to 'Assume" that the dog will follow the car to preset location and then find the food, which owner was instructed (per choice D) to place there? I am stressing on this because Bart's problem will be solved even without purchasing the device, if he simply places food at pre-set location.

If I think for long enough (and digest the fact that 70% people chose ), I am fine with the reasoning, kind of .

But prima-facie this logic seems too stretched. I am not supposed to make additional assumptions on strengthen questions.

To me C looks better (again with a stretched assumption that dog will be fed if instructions are followed, and the will stop barking, solving Bart's problem).

Bart's problem - His dog eats multiple times at night and barks each time till fed.
So he wants to buy a device (collar + car).
Collar shocks when the dog barks. Car goes to a pre-set location. There is a set of instructions on how this will work which we are not explained in the argument.

Saleman's claim - If you stick to instructions, your problem will be sorted.

We need to support the salesman's claims.

A. Many people who reported dissatisfaction with the system also reported deviating from the provided instructions.

Many of those who reported dissatisfaction with the system could have also stuck to the provided instructions. 'Many' is just that - a large number. It is not 'almost all'.
Also, we don't know if there were others who reported satisfaction.

B. Bart would get a return on his investment in the system, even if the system only works 30-% of the time.

ROI is irrelevant.

C. Bart’s dog when fed well stops barking.

We know this already. Given:
"Dogs that eat late at night do so multiple times disturbing the sleep of their owner while barking incessantly till fed with food. To address this behavior in his dog,

D. Users of the device reported that following the provided instructions that included placing ample food at the pre-set location has conditioned their dogs to go to the location when hungry.

Tells us that following instructions makes the dog go to the location where there is food. So the device is successful in training them to go there when hungry - whatever the mechanism whether they follow the car or some other way, only the instructions can tell us. We don't have to worry about the exact execution.
It does seem to suggest that Bart's problem will be solved. Correct.

E. The collar device – if it works as intended – will allow Bart to have a peaceful night and therefore, be less frustrated with his dog.

The point is - will it work as intended? Doesn't address that.

Answer (D)

A most straightforward reasoning that needs Tobe mentioned is that no optionally g8ves you the reason why the dogs problem will be solved Ed simply shocking a hungry dog doesn't seem to Bea solution.


D explains the gap in the paragraph on what exactly the torture contraption will actually help with before this we just knew toy will change locationshow is that helpful? But if it's to get the dog to food automatically it makes sense.

Hmm, this argument seems to rely on the assumption that none of us has ever had a dog. If the dog is hungry in the night, we should simultaneously harm and reward the dog every time it barks? What if it barks all night? What happens after it eats the food? Why wouldn't the dog find the food on its own? (Short answer--it would!)

Please don't spend time on this problem, and if it makes sense to you, please don't get a pet!