Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pu

Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty. - In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle that could be pulled to release food into an enclosure. The enclosure could have one of the three possibilities:

1. A familiar dog
2. An unfamiliar dog
3. Nothing (The enclosure is empty).

The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog. - It was found in the experiment that the dogs released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar one. (It could be their familiarity that made the dogs do this. We also note that the scientist does not talk about the food released when the enclosure was empty.)

This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs. - The scientist concludes that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than unfamiliar ones. (The conclusion also does not discuss the situation in which the enclosure was empty.)

Gist:Dogs could pull a handle to release food into an enclosure that contained a familiar dog, contained an unfamiliar dog, or was empty. Dogs released more food to the familiar dog than the unfamiliar one (support). Thus, dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than unfamiliar ones (conclusion).


The scientist treats releasing more food as being more motivated to help. In other words, the argument assumes that the dogs could not have released more food for any reason other than to help the familiar dogs.

Also, the scientist assumes that the dogs recognize the familiar dogs and not the unfamiliar dogs. And that their actions are driven by familiarity and not by any specific situation the enclosure dogs may be in, or any particular actions the dogs may be performing.


In what situation if the dogs released more food would the argument get strengthened? In order to strengthen the argument, we may focus on bridging either of the two gaps discussed above. There could be other ways to strengthen the argument as well. Just that we could think of two aspects.


A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person
Incorrect. The conclusion is: “This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs”. If the dogs’ behavior was encouraged by a familiar person, we actually start wondering whether it was the motivation to help that made the dogs release more food, or some external factor not discussed in the passage. It certainly does not strengthen the argument.

Beware of this option. Many times, test-takers end up selecting an answer that actually does the opposite of what has been asked in the question. This answer, if anything, weakens the argument that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs.

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog
Incorrect. How dogs react to an empty enclosure compared with one containing an unfamiliar dog does not impact the argument in any way. Even if we take motivation to help as the reason for dogs releasing food, all this option tells us is that dogs are not particularly motivated to help unfamiliar dogs. This does not strengthen the argument that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs.

If I simply show Y is low in absolute terms, that does not strengthen that X is more than Y. X may be low as well.

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly
Incorrect. If the behaviour of the dog in the enclosure impacts the other dogs’ propensity to release food in any way, their higher motivation to help familiar dogs, in fact, gets questioned.

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food
Incorrect. How the dogs with the handle reacted to the enclosure’s dogs’ interest level does not help strengthen the argument at all. In fact, if the enclosure’s dogs’ interest level impacted the propensity of dogs with the handle to release food, we question whether ‘motivation to help’ was the driving factor or not.

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty
Correct. This option compares the reaction to a familiar dog in the enclosure with the reaction to a familiar dog not in the enclosure.

To understand this option, let’s first understand a possible challenge to the given argument. Can somebody argue that the dog with the handle released more food in case of a familiar dog not because it wanted to help the familiar dog but because the presence of the familiar dog stimulated him, in some way, to press the handle more often? Essentially, we are doubting whether there was any ‘intention’ to help. If the dog with the handle released more food just on the sight of the familiar dog, regardless of whether the familiar dog got the food or not, we would have a strong reason to doubt that there was an ‘intention’ to help.

This option is around the above aspect. Since dogs release more food when the familiar dog was in the enclosure, we are further convinced that the dogs wanted to help the familiar dog, and it was not just the sight of a familiar dog that triggered the response. If it were just the sight, then the dogs would have released equal quantities of food even when the visible familiar dog was not inside the enclosure. The dogs releasing less food in this scenario (when the enclosure was empty) lends credence to the notion that the dogs realized that the familiar dogs outside the enclosure will not be helped by the released food, and thus their propensity to release food was lower.


SC Notes:
“a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty” – this is a list of three conditions the enclosure could be in. In order to maintain parallelism with the third element that starts with a different verb ‘was’, the second element of the list also starts with the verb ‘contained’.

The question stem contains the phrase “if it were true that”. The verb ‘were’ goes with the subject ‘it’. This usage is correct. Such usage is correct whenever the “if” is used to describe a hypothetical rather than an actual circumstance.

Option A contains two occurrences of ‘being’ and is correct. Not sure from where the myth that options containing the word ‘being’ are incorrect in SC originated, but it is just that – a myth. “Being” is very much a part of the English language and thus has to be perfectly acceptable on GMAT, unless, of course, we believe that the GMAT is not testing English. Probably, French!!


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty. The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

Core- dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs
Type-strengthen

The scientist's argument would be most strengthened if it were true that, in the experiment, the dogs with access to the handle tended to release more food when

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person- irrelevant- who encouraged the behavior is not relevant

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog - incorrect, this compares empty enclosure vs unfamiliar dog and thus it does not help us

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly- incorrect, we do not know the effect of hostile and friendly behavior on the behavior of the dog with access to handle

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food- incorrect, we do not know whether this dog is a familiar one or unfamiliar

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty- Correct, both the scenarios involve a familiar dog.
Situation 1- a familiar dog was in enclosure
Situation 2- a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty --> the release of food into the empty enclosure would not help the visible dog and thus the dog with handle will release lesser amount of food.

Answer E
_________________

mikemcgarry GMATNinja egmat
I didnt even understand what E is trying to convey. Visible but not in the enclosure? What does that even mean? Besides how does helping a familiar dog is relavant to being in the enclosure or being visible?

PLease help

ArtVandaley


I know you requested expert help, but I'll give it a shot.

Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty. The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

The scientist's argument would be most strengthened if it were true that, in the experiment, the dogs with access to the handle tended to release more food when

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty


In this experiment, the scientist came to the conclusion that the reason a dog provided more food to an familiar dog in an enclosure than to an unfamiliar dog in a separate enclosure is that the "participant" dog prefers to help a familiar dog than an unfamiliar dog. More specifically, if a familiar or unfamiliar dog is in an enclosure, it means that it may require help.

Choice E states that the enclosure (e.g. dog requiring help) may have nothing to do with it... the dog may be, in fact, just more likely to provide more food, or press the handle more, when this dog merely sees a familiar dog, whether that familiar dog is in an enclosure or not. Well, this would then mean that the dog doesn't necessarily care about helping. It just puts more food into an enclosure when it sees a familiar dog that is in that enclosure or anywhere visible (not necessarily in that enclosure). It may also be the case that when the dog sees an unfamiliar dog that is in the enclosure or anywhere around it, it will not press the handle as much (for some reason that we have not identified..

The key here is whether dog cares about helping or not. We can weaken the scientist's interpretation of the results if we can show that the dog may not care about helping.

gmatt1476 Would be great to get an official explanation of this one. Thank you.

Official Explantion

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five experimental outcomes, if added to the information given, would most strengthen the evidence for the scientist's conclusion?

There were three enclosures, two of which contained a dog. Only one of these contained a familiar dog. The dogs released more food to familiar dogs than to unfamiliar dogs. The scientists thereby concluded that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than they are to help unfamiliar dogs.

However, it is possible that releasing the food to the familiar dog could have been motivated by other reasons. For example, the dog could simply be trying to communicate with the familiar dog rather than necessarily trying specifically to help this dog.

If the dogs released more food to a familiar dog while it was contained in an enclosure than when it was not enclosed yet nearby and visible, this would strengthen the idea of trying to “help” the other dog.

A. This information would weaken the scientist's argument. It introduces information suggesting the presence of a confounding variable in the experimental setup. That is, if the behavior was encouraged by a familiar person, we would not be able to tell whether it was this person's presence or the presence of the other dog that increased the behavior.

B. This would suggest that the dog's activation of the lever was not contingent on providing food to another animal. In other words, if the dog provides food even when there is no animal to provide food for, then it follows that the presence of the other dog is irrelevant to this behavior.

C. The experimental setup described here introduces the factor of friendliness. Adding this extra factor could easily confound testing of the original hypothesis, which suggested that simple familiarity increased the behavior.

D. The experimental setup described here introduces a factor of food interest. Adding this extra factor could easily confound testing of the original hypothesis, which suggested that simple familiarity increased the behavior.

E. Correct. This information would strengthen the hypothesis that a desire to help a familiar dog was operative in the dog's behavior.

The correct answer is E.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
Can you please explain this question ?

I received a request that I comment.

Premise:
The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog.
Conclusion:
Dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

The correct answer must strengthen the link between the release of food and the desire to HELP a familiar dog.
Note:
To receive food in the experiment, a dog must be in the enclosure.

E: The dogs tended to release more food when a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty.
Here, a familiar dog in the enclosure would receive food and thus would be HELPED, while a familiar dog that was visible but NOT in the enclosure would NOT receive any food and thus would NOT be helped -- STRENGTHENING the link between the release of food and the desire to HELP a familiar dog.


_________________

It might be a good idea to put yourself in the scientist's shoes and ask yourself: what else could I do to prove the validity of my hypothesis?
_________________

Any expert can clarify this question pls.... VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
_________________

Honestly I couldn't even make sense of some of the options
Options C, D and E were completely incomprehensible for me

Is it just me or anyone else also felt the same?

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, VeritasKarishma, AnthonyRitz, CJAnish, MartyTargetTestPrep,AndrewN,VeritasPrepBrian

Dear experts, I genuinely need your explanation on D

my immediate thought is that because the dog in enclosure appeared uninterested in food , so it needed help, and the dog who has access to handle to release food would motivate to help the dog who shown uninterested in food.

experts, would you please point out my fault?

thanks in advance.

The question is:

Why does the dog typically release more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog?

Is it because the dog is more interested in helping the dog they know? Or is there any other reason?

If, as D says, the dog released more food to the uninterested dog than to the interested dog, then this is, if anything, a weakener. It suggests that whatever the dog's reason for pushing the lever, it wasn't to help the other dog -- since releasing food to an apparently-uninterested subject would not, presumably, help that subject. And if releasing food is not about helping, then the conclusion fails -- the dog is not trying to help the familiar dog by pushing the lever. So D is out.

(I'm not quite sure I fully understood your comment in favor of D. If I have not addressed your concern, please clarify and I'll try again.)

As for E, if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

Does this make sense?
_________________

thanks for your quick reply AnthonyRitz

what makes me favor of D of that some similar scenario around my life, like following:

when I went to a book store, and I spent sometime to find an interesting book, and my behavior showed I did not find an interesting book.
a shop assistant realized my problem, and (s)he helped me to find an interesting book.

so in my opinion, if I showed uninterested in something, and someone came to help me.

similar, if a dog showed uninterested in food, another dog came to help it.

that's why I tough D shows the dog's motivation to help.

please point out my reasoning bug.

thanks in advance.

Ah, see, the problem appears to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "uninterested." If you are "uninterested" in something it means you do not want it. If I'm uninterested in food, I don't need help, I don't need food, I'm not interested. So it wouldn't be helping to dump food into my enclosure. If I'm uninterested in books, I'm probably not walking around a bookstore in the first place. But even if I am in a bookstore looking around, if I appear uninterested in books (i.e. if I appear not to have any desire to find a book), it would be totally inappropriate and actively unhelpful for a salesperson to come and try to show me books -- books that, again, I am not interested in. Being "uninterested" in something is not a condition of wanting or needing someone to rectify your "interest" in that thing.
_________________

Hey experts,

Had there been an option that said —

The dogs with access to handles tended to release more food when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty than when the enclosure contained an unfamiliar dog.

Would the above option strengthen the given argument?

Posted from my mobile device

Hey I am far from being an expert but probably not. This would kind of weaken the argument as it might indicate that the visibility of the friendly dog gets the dog with the handles excited and he releases food in excitement and not particularly to help dogs and the argument revolves around helping.

EducationAisle GMATNinja
I am not able to understand option E.
Can you please help?
My understanding of the argument:
A familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty -->What does that even mean? A familiar dog was not inside the enclosure. It was roaming around, hence the enclosure was empty. The visible dog will not have access to the food.
I am not able to imagine the situation.

Thanks in advance.

Well, for all you know, both the dogs (the dog with access to handle and the familiar dog) could be on the same side (both of them, outside the enclosure).

Hope you are able to imagine the situation now.
_________________