In recent years, Doberman attacks on small children have risen

OPTION - E Works as it further adds credibility to the Argument that is it further adds credibility to the conclusion which is what a Strengthen Argument should do!

Argument is about Doberman attacks on small children.
Conclusion is about all dogs.

Missing link "Is Doberman representative of dogs in general?
If not than conclusion is not true.

Missing link is complete by choice E.

IMO Choice E.­

Correct answer is E
Conclusion- it is unsafe to keep dogs as pets if one has small children.
A. No reasonable justification for these attacks by Dobermans on small children has been discovered.- irrelevant

B. Other household pets, such as cats, don't display the same violent tendencies that dogs do.- out of scope, passage is about Dobermans and dogs as pets

C. The number of attacks by Dobermans on small children will continue to rise in the coming years.- even if this is not true conclusion will not collapse

D. A large percentage of the attacks by Dobermans on small children could have been prevented by proper training.- irrelevant

yes E. The behavior toward small children exhibited by Dobermans is representative of dogs in general.- correct, this will strengthen the conclusion by showing that dogs are dangerous to children

­

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

E

The evidence discusses attacks by Dobermans, but the conclusion is that dogs-any dogs - are unsafe around little kids. This makes sense only if we assume (E): that Dobermans, in their behavior toward little kids, are generally representative of dogs. A good way of checking assumptions is to see what happens if we take their opposite: If the opposite of a statement weakens the argument, then that statement is assumed; if it doesn't, it's not. Here, if Dobermans' behavior toward small children isn't typical of dogs, the argument falls apart.

(A), whether the attacks were justified, is beside the point. Even if the kids were pulling the dogs' tails, the authors point that the dogs aren't safe still holds. Other pets are beyond the scope, so (B)'s out. As for (C), the argument doesn't deal with the future, so.the author needn't assume anything about it. And it certainly wouldn't weaken the argument if, contrary to (D), many of the attacks could not have been prevented, so (D)'s not assumed.­