Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and

Question

Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners’ request. They claim that the decrease in the number of stray animals to contend with will offset the costs of the funding. These people fail to realize that over 80 percent of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals, so there will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if funding is provided.

Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.

(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.

GDT · Answer

Concl: Providing funding will not help decrease pets

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.  Incorrect. If this is true then we can see why funding will not help

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.   Correct This does not strengthen the concl that spaying would not help But at the same time it doesn't weaken the concl as well because we don't know if the off springs of pets also form strays, Hence it is the correct ans

(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.  This strengthens the concl as it gives reason why funding won't help

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.  It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.  It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help

HarshaGM · Answer

The correct answer is option (B).

Let us understand why.

Understanding the passage: 
1. Opponent of Funding:
 a) Some people favour city funding for spaying/neutering of pets, at the request of owners
 b) They claim that cost of funding is counter-balanced by the reduced cost of handling stray animals (due to the reduction of stray animals due to neutering)

Logic:  Spaying/Neutering of pets => these pets will not breed animals that will end up as strays => Reduction in number of strays
 
 c) These people (some people) do not realise that 80% of pet owners already pay to spay/neuter their pets
 d) i.e. Even without funding, 80% of pet owners spay their pets with their own money, so there will not be a significant decrease in number of stray animals, even if funding is provided

Logic:  At max, this funding will get the remaining 20% to spay their pets, but this is not a significant enough number to causea reduction in strays.

Question:  Find the one statement which is not a strengthener.

Conclusion: 
 Funding for spaying/neutering to pet owners will not lead to a reduction in the number of strays.

We should find the one statement in the options that does  not  strengthen the above conclusion.

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets. 
If this is true, then spaying/neutering pets is not useful -> then funding for spaying/neutering is not useful -> strengthens the conclusion.

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city. 
if this is true, then
Funding -> more pet owners getting their pets neutered sooner -> Reducing the time available for pets to reproduce and breed more strays -> Reduction in strays -> weakens the conclusion.

Here Funding -> reduction in strays. This weakens our conclusion (Funding -x> Reduction of strays). Hence this is the correct answer.

(C) The only way the number of sray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered. 
If this is true, the it means that pets are not the main reason for the number of strays -> Spaying/neutering spays will not help much to reduce #Strays -> Funding for neutering will not help #Strays -> Strengthens the conclusion.

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong. 
If this is true, then even with Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - it is morally wrong!) -> pets may breed more strays -> number of strays will not reduce -> Strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals. 
If this is true, then 
1. This means majority (>50%) of pets that are yet to be spayed will not be spayed even with funding (these pets are kept for breeding)
2. Pets are of 2 types - 1. Already spayed -> cannot produce strays 
 2. Not spayed -> but these will not contribute to strays (majority)
3. What the above means is that the number of strays is not decided by pets, but decided by other factors (probably number of strays)

Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - these pets are kept for breeding) -> these pets will breed but will not produce strays, while other pets are already spayed, will not produce strays -> number of strays will not reduce because of funding (because of no actual impact) -> strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)

Cheers!

rahat16 · Answer

We have a to find an answer choice which supports the conclusion that "Funding will not support decrease in number of stray animals" given that 80% of the pet owners already pay to spay their pets .

(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.- most of the stray animals are offspring of stary animals , so funding for spaying pets will not really lead to decrease in number of stary animals

(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.--- this actally break the conclusion and is a WEAKNER. this is correct

(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.--- if this is the only way, that means funding for spaying pets will not help to decreas the count of stray animals

(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong. ---if this is true , then it means even if funding is provided then such people will not get their pets spayed

(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.-if this is true , then it means even if funding is provided then people using their pets for breeding purposed will not get their pets spayed

DmitryFarber · Answer

There are some typos (feel free to flag what you see), but the logic appears to be sound. If you have any trouble reaching B on logical grounds, let us know.

Dbrunik · Answer

thank you Dmitry, came back to this one today and got it right.

ArvindS37 · Answer

Conclusion: New information which tells me that there will not be significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if the funding is provided.

Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
This shows that there will be partial increase in the number of stray dogs.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
This shows that if funding is not provided some people will not spayed or neutered their pets, this may leads to increase in stray. We keep this option for now.
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
This shows that stays needs to be spayed or neutered not pets.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
Funding will not have any affect on these pets.
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
This shows that funding will not have any effect on these pets.

Ratanp · Answer

There are many typos in this one

Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and

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

Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and

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