People who own dangerous pets such as poisonous snakes or ferocious do

Option D is the answer in my view. If a pet owner cannot completely control their pet's behavior, then it is unfair to say that they should be held 100% accountable for the harm the pets inflict on people. Let's consider for instance a pet owner keeps his snake pet within a space where humans are not exposed to it. Then someone out of the blue breaks into such confines or provokes the snake and got bitten in the process, it would be unfair to hold the snake owner accountable for such a scenario. The only justification out of the options given to support the pet owner in such a circumstance is that a pet owner cannot completely control their pet's behavior.

All the other options would strengthen the argument.

Imo D.

People who own dangerous pets such as poisonous snakes or ferocious dogs are morally and legally responsible for their pets actions. If someone is hurt by such a pet, the owner should be held 100% accountable.

All of the following statements, if true, would strengthen this argument EXCEPT

A. the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners. - Place of pets are under control of their owners. So, its owner's responsibility if pet hurts someone. Strengthen.

B. a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property. - Pets are property of a person (which is under control of a person) and person (in general) is responsible if his property hurts someone. Strengthen.

C. a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored. - It's responsibility of parents to control their children's whereabouts. Strengthen.

D. pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors. -this option mentions that pet owner can't control pets completely. So, they are not fully blameworthy at all. Seems mild weakener, hence correct.

E. a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly.- dangerous pet is like a dangerous weapon and it must be cared accordingly. Strengthen.

People who own dangerous pets such as poisonous snakes or ferocious dogs are morally and legally responsible for their pets actions. If someone is hurt by such a pet, the owner should be held 100% accountable.

All of the following statements, if true, would strengthen this argument EXCEPT

A. the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners. - Strengthener.
B. a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property.-- strengthener
C. a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored. -- strengthener
D. pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors. -- does not strength
E. a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly. -- strengthener

Ans: D

Owners of dangerous pets such as snakes and ferocious dogs are responsible for their pets’ actions. Anything that even after all the preparations by owners is not under their control would either weaken or be neutral to above argument.

A. the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners. WRONG. Since any actions of pets would be under the supervision of their owners, owners would be held responsible for letting those actions happen.
B. a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property. – WRONG. Again a strengthener.
C. a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored. – WRONG. Analogy drawn here would strengthen the argument.
D. pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors. – CORRECT. If owners can’t control things they would not take any responsibility.
E. a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly. – WRONG. Any weapon used either by owners or someone else makes owner accountable hence the option strengthens the argument.

IMO Answer (D).

ARGUMENT
[con] people who own dangerous pets are morally and legally responsible for their actions, and must be held 100% accountable.

A. this strengthens the premise that owners are accountable for their pets actions, out;
B. "pet is a property, and people are resp. for their prop" strengthens, out;
C. "must constantly be controlled and trained" strengthens, out;
E. "it must be cared for accordingly."

Answer (D): if owners cannot control their pets, how could they be responsible for their actions? this definitely doesn't strengthen.

The question indicates that : Dangerous Dogs are the physical property of their owners and any act done by them is the responsibility of the owners
Question: EXCEPT It's vital to understand that more often than not, we end up not reading this word and end up screwing up because we're in a jiffy .
All of the following statements, if true, would strengthen this argument EXCEPT

A. the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners.-Indicates a reason why owners should be responsible.


B. a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property.-Here a relationship has been drawn between a person's dog and property.



C. a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored.-Indicates moral grounds on which the owner can be held responsible

D. pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors.-this is a probable answer choice, let's keep this option.

E. a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly.- Again, a relationship has been drawn between a weapon and a dog indicating that dangerous properties of a person, is that persons responsibility.


ANSWER:D

Conclusion ;
If someone is hurt by such a pet, the owner should be held 100% accountable.
only option which weakens the arguement is pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors.
IMO D;

People who own dangerous pets such as poisonous snakes or ferocious dogs are morally and legally responsible for their pets actions. If someone is hurt by such a pet, the owner should be held 100% accountable.

All of the following statements, if true, would strengthen this argument EXCEPT

A. the physical whereabouts of pets are completely under the control of their owners.
B. a pet is the legal property of a person, and people are responsible for damages inflicted by their property.
C. a pet is like a young child in that its whereabouts must constantly be controlled and behaviors trained and monitored.
D. pet owners cannot completely control their pets’ behaviors.
E. a dangerous pet is no different from a dangerous weapon, and it must be cared for accordingly

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: D

If pet owners cannot completely control their pets behaviors, then this undermines the conclusion that pet owners should be 100% accountable for their pets actions. The other choices, however, all make claims that support the argument for accountability.

Selected D. the owners are responsible for their pets in every way irrespective of the moods or behaviour of their pets.