This one's sneaky because it looks like a straightforward percent problem until you dig into statement 2, and I remember flagging almost the exact same trap on my own diagnostic.
1. Set total pet owners to 100 (percentages become headcounts). Cat owners = 18%, so dog owners = 82%.
2. Male pet owners = 42%, so female pet owners = 58%. We want female dog owners.
3. Statement 1: male dog owners = 34%. Since total dog owners = 82%, female dog owners = 82 - 34 = 48%. Sufficient.
4. Statement 2: female cat : male cat = 5:4. Cat owners total is fixed at 18%, so split 18 in a 5:4 ratio, female cat = 10%, male cat = 8%. Total male pet owners is 42%, so male dog = 42 - 8 = 34%. Female dog = 82 - 34 = 48%. Also sufficient, and it lands on the exact same 48%, nice sanity check.
5. Each statement alone nails down 48%, so the answer is D.
The trap here is assuming a ratio statement is automatically "not enough on its own" because it doesn't hand you a straight percentage. People see 5:4 and instinctively want to pair it with something else. But when the ratio applies to a category whose total you already know, it converts into hard numbers instantly. I actually stopped mid-solve to double check statement 2 wasn't secretly insufficient, because C felt like the "safe" pick.
Takeaway: when a DS ratio statement acts on a group whose size you already know, don't assume it needs backup, run the numbers before deciding it's insufficient.