A recently-completed study found that owning a cat

I feel that Option A also does not weakens the conclusion as it does not provide any reason as to why having a dog would help reduce stress in a person.

[quote="naren485"]Scientist: A recently-completed study found that owning a cat can reduce the risk of a heart attack by one-third. This finding was attributed to the stress relief that comes from having a cat in the home. Since dogs are also usually kept as companions, owning a dog should also reduce the risk of heart attack by one-third.

All of the following weaken the scientist's hypothesis EXCEPT:

A. The researchers believe that the stress relief comes from the unique act of petting a cat held in the lap. (petting a cat gives stress relief, so weakens)
B. The difficulty of finding someone to watch a dog means that dog owners are rarely able to take a vacation or make visit friends and family (no vacation and friend visit certainly weakening factor)
C.Some people who choose cats have other elements of a lower stress lifestyle while dog owners usually do not (tempting to say that it is weakening but devil in "some people",meaning it does not weaken).
D. Dogs often react to sounds with loud barking that prevents the owner from getting a full night's rest (weakens).
E. Dogs require frequent walks that can add to an already hectic schedule. (weakens)

C

Exactly, some can mean 0.1% OR 80%.
So the correct answer will be C

All the options, except one, Weaken the Argument by showing that Owning a dog doesn't necessarily reduce the risk of heart-attack.

Choice C, however, strengthen the argument by showing that Cat owners already have lower levels of stress compared to Dog owners.
This choice at best does the opposite thing by exposing another Cause for the given Effect.
hence choice - C is the answer.

In B arent we assuming that not going to a fiend's place or on a vacation is related to increase in stress??? In that case b also does not weaken hence it is unrelated to weakening of the conclusion.

Hi
have confusion over option A, as it states petting a cat reduces stress level which is inline with stimulus above so how does this weaken the conclusion

Because the stimulus states that 'owning' a cat can reduce the risk of a heart attack by one-third, whereas the answer option A weakens the statement given in the argument by saying that 'petting' a cat held in the lap gives stress relief.

its C.
"some people" is the key!

"Relief comes from the unique act of petting a cat held in the lap." It is not the cat but the petting what relieves the stress. We cannot apply the same reasoning to a dog. So A weakens the conclusion.
_________________

Stem : C = owning cats D = owning dogs

C = stress < 1/3 . So D also 1/3.

Assumption C similar to D. To weaken, we show C not similar to D.
A. Clearly says only unique to cat. This does weaken. Out.
B. Another difference
C. This goes out of scope. Excellent choice. We are not interested in some. We were only interested in ' How owning a pet affects the owner.' Hence this is neither strengthening nor weakening. Hold it
D. Weakens
E. Weakens

So out of this, only C provides info absolutely irrelevant to argument.

Please note : Does not weaken != strengthen

I can see that people are trying to find an option that strengthens the author's argument. Don't!!!

hello experts,

could you please help us with the below question.

Scientist: A recently-completed study found that owning a cat can reduce the risk of a heart attack by one-third. This finding was attributed to the stress relief that comes from having a cat in the home. Since dogs are also usually kept as companions, owning a dog should also reduce the risk of heart attack by one-third.

All of the following weaken the scientist's hypothesis EXCEPT:

A. The researchers believe that the stress relief comes from the unique act of petting a cat held in the lap.
This means only petting cat in the lap would reduce the stress and petting the dog will not reduce stress, so its weakening
B. The difficulty of finding someone to watch a dog means that dog owners are rarely able to take a vacation or make visit friends and family.
This weakens the hypothesis by making a point that the owners may not be able to reduce stress by visiting friends and families thus adding to the stress.
C. Some people who choose cats have other elements of a lower stress lifestyle while dog owners usually do not.
it means that having cats is not the only factor for lowering stress and thus having dogs would also not be relevant but it does not weakens the claim of the scientist that the petting dogs would lower the stress so this is the correct choice.
D. Dogs often react to sounds with loud barking that prevents the owner from getting a full night's rest.
sleeping is very important and so having dogs would add stress to life and thus this weakens the hypothesis.
E. Dogs require frequent walks that can add to an already hectic schedule.
Clearly weakens the hypothesis since adding to hectic schedule would lead to more stress

You need to specifically elaborate your query, so that we may adress your doubt properly.

Even though explanations are helpful, the word "Some" in (C) may not be a good reason to choose an answer.


In weaken or strengthen question, If there`s meaningful effect on argument or conclusion, It does not matter whether it is big or small.



We need focus on word REDUCE in argument.


(C) do not explain the effect of reduction, that`s reason why we choose (C)

In my opinion all the answers are weakening...

A: There is mention of some method that is 'Unique' to cats
C: While in C: mention of Some People does not qualify this option as a non-weakener (some in quantitative terms (available in books also) ranges in ( 0% to 100% ]. C would have been a non-weakener if instead of some people, the idea had been 'generically' mentioned

I ruled out B and C since they lead us onto assuming that vacation and no barking would reduce stress. This isnt implied directly either in the argument or the options. Why are we considering them?

The correct answer is option (C). All the other options introduce factors that add to the pet owner's stress. To elaborate:

A. The researchers propose that the stress relief is specifically derived from the unique act of petting a cat held in the lap. This implies that stress reduction is associated only with petting a cat in this particular way, suggesting that petting a dog would not provide the same stress relief. Therefore, this weakens the hypothesis.

B. The challenge of finding someone to care for a dog implies that dog owners may struggle to take vacations or visit friends and family. This weakens the hypothesis by suggesting that the responsibilities associated with owning a dog may hinder opportunities for stress-reducing activities, such as vacations and social visits, thus potentially adding to stress.

C. Some individuals who opt for cats may already have other aspects of a lower-stress lifestyle, while dog owners typically do not. While this introduces a potential confounding factor, it does not directly challenge the scientist's claim that petting dogs can reduce stress. Therefore, this option does not weaken the hypothesis and is the correct answer!

D. Dogs frequently respond to sounds with loud barking, which can disrupt the owner's sleep, potentially preventing a full night's rest. Given the importance of quality sleep for stress management, this weakens the hypothesis by suggesting that owning a dog may contribute to sleep disturbances, counteracting the potential stress relief from pet ownership.

E. Dogs necessitate regular walks, which can further burden an already hectic schedule. This directly weakens the hypothesis, as the additional demands on time and schedule associated with owning a dog could lead to increased stress.
_________________