Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Altho

Question

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dogs general well-being.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred, are subject to the same common nongenetically determined diseases.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life spans than do nonpurebred dogs.

(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends to be lower than the purchase price of purebred dogs.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically determined abnormalities may nevertheless have offspring with such abnormalities.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes.  Perhaps the abnormalities can be as benign as splotches of color in a dog’s white coat. Since such cases would have no effect on a dog’s health, there would be no medical need for costly surgery.

(B) No. At first glance, this choice seems good. But the passage already implies that both purebred and nonpurebred dogs suffer genetically determined abnormalities. The more important issue is the percentage of purebred dogs who have genetically determined abnormalities versus the percentage of nonpurebred who have genetically determined abnormalities.

(C) No. This should not affect health care costs for the dogs. The key phrase in this answer-choice is “ natural life spans .”

(D) No. The argument concerns only the avoidance of costly medical bills.

(E) No. Even if the offspring of nonpurebred dogs are as likely to have abnormalities as the offspring of purebred dogs, the passage implies the current generation of nonpurebred dogs is less likely to have the abnormalities.

gixxer1000 · Answer

A

Purebred dogs have genetic abnormalities that are expensive to correct. Nonpurebred dogs don't have these abnormalities. To reduce the risk of cost you should get a nonpurebred dog so you don't have to pay to correct the abnormality.

The assumption is that the abnormality has to be corrected.

Statement A states that the abnormality does not affect the dogs health and therfore is not needed.

snaps · Answer

Ans is A, here is why:

Conlcusion: to reduce risk of high medical bills choose nonpurebred (NPB)
WHY?
Evidence: PBs are prone to GDA, NPB rarely suffer

so the author assumes that if I buy PB dog I have to bring it to the vet to make PB feel better. oh yeah? what if I and my PB Fido are ok with 3 eyes and two tails? Nature is nature!

a) tells us that 3 eyes and two tails are ok as long as does not affect fido well-being

b) talk about  non genetically diseases --  out of scope

c) shorter life spans do not necessarily mean $$$$ vet bills

d) PB purchase price > NPB price has nothing to do with medical bills. This ans choice wants you to make an assumption if cheaper than less maintenance problems. Think Lada.

e) old news. E tells that NPBs  may have  GDA, well we already know that. If you recall, the evidence tells us that says "NPB  rarely suffer " -- rarely but do suffer i.e. may have it

grumpyoldman · Answer

It is hard to improve on gixxer's explanation. The conclusion is that you will have less risk of high medical bills for your dog if you choose a non-purebred. The evidence is that purebred dogs are more prone to genetic abnormalities, and that it costs thousands of dollars to correct these abnormalities surgically. To weaken the argument, you have to break the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. "Breaking the connection" means contradicting or undermining the assumption. In this case, one assumption is that if your dog has such an abnormality, you DO have to correct it surgically. Choice A definitely undermines this assumption.

As always, we do not care whether A is actually TRUE or not; the question is whether the argument is weaker if it IS true. I don't think very many purebred German Shepherds would agree with A, once their hips freeze up. But that's irrelevant for CR.

Choice B does not help. It is true that the argument also assumes that there is NOT some other kind of expensive-to-correct problem to which NON-purebred dogs are MORE susceptible. But B does not attack this assumption; it only says that there is another set of conditions to which they are EQUALLY susceptible. It would need to identify something that is MORE common among non-purebreds in order to weaken the assumption.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Simplify the argument

Premise - 
1. Cost of correcting genetic abnormalities in purebred dogs can reach several thousand dollars.
2. Non purebred dogs rarely suffer from these abnormalities.

Conclusion - 
Dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose non purebred dogs.

Option A - Correct.
this suggests that owning purebred dogs may not be as costly as was thought earlier because those abnormalities do not affect a dog's well-being.

Option B - Incorrect.
But the cost of owning purebred dogs is still much higher because of costs of correcting genetic irregularities.

Option C - Incorrect.
Kind of strengthens the argument. Suggests that owning purebred dogs may not be such a good idea after all.

Option D - Incorrect.
Not relevant as we are talking about reducing "medical bills", not "purchase prices".

Option E - Incorrect.
It does not have any effect on my conclusion that choosing non purebred dogs reduces medical bills.

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Most genetically determined abnormalities in dogs do not seriously affect a dogs general well-being.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred, are subject to the same common nongenetically determined diseases.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have shorter natural life spans than do nonpurebred dogs.

(D) The purchase price of nonpurebred dogs tends to be lower than the purchase price of purebred dogs.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically determined abnormalities may nevertheless have offspring with such abnormalities.

Conclusion:all owner who want to avoid cost inccured due to treatment of surgeries should buy nonpurebred dogs,

Option 1 is correct to weaken the argument since it says that the dogs with such condition are overall healthy and not neccessarily require expensive medical treatments.

nazgull · Answer

A says that general well-being of such dogs isn't affected. True, but this doesn't mean that the owner might not have to do a surgery for an abnormality resulting out of genetics at some point of dog's lifetime. The fact/premise clearly says "Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities."

IMO E is a better choice as the owner might end-up buying an offspring (theoretically nonpurebred dog) with such abnormality. In that case owner has to incur the cost of surgery anyhow.

Please correct me in case I'm wrong.

NeoNguyen1989 · Answer

IMO the OA isnt very convincing. To weaken an argument is to weaken the assumption or to do the conclusion. The answer A is to weaken the assumption while the answer E is clearly to me weakening the conclusion. The sense is that to choose non purebred dogs might still incur risk of high cost to cure abbormalities for their pets due to their offspring might still have abnormalities. Between answer A or answer E, the choice that is to weaken to conclusion is more correct than the one that weakens the assumption

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

unraveled · Answer

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Although such abnormalities often can be corrected by surgery, the cost can reach several thousand dollars. Since nonpurebred dogs rarely suffer from genetically determined abnormalities, potential dog owners who want to reduce the risk of incurring costly medical bills for their pets would be well advised to choose nonpurebred dogs.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A)  Most  genetically determined abnormalities in dogs  do not seriously affect  a dogs general well-being. - CORRECT. A reason for a possible risk reduction of medical cost.

(B) All dogs, whether purebred or nonpurebred, are  subject to the same common nongenetically determined diseases . - WRONG. Then what happens. We don't know and thus can't say further.

(C) Purebred dogs tend to have  shorter natural life spans  than do nonpurebred dogs. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) The  purchase price  of nonpurebred dogs tends to be lower than the purchase price of purebred dogs. - WRONG. Purchase price does not equals medical bills. Irrelevant.

(E) A dog that does not have genetically determined abnormalities may nevertheless have  offspring with such abnormalities . - WRONG. Tricks initially but medical bills are concerned for the present generation of dog/s not offsprings.

Answer A.

natusnulla · Answer

A is not very convincing. Why would you assume that the owner is only thinking about well-being? Whether or not there are other factors leading to the decision of surgery is a matter of subject expertise, and out of scope of CR.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hey

The conclusion is about  reducing risk , so any minor effect (“not serious”) still supports non-purebreds, so there will be less risk if we buy non purebred (even less by 0.0001%). -> (option A)
 A says  “most dogs” , not specific to purebreds → This also doesn't help A
 Therefore, A doesn’t truly weaken the argument; it might even reinforce it slightly because of the first point. Please let me know your thoughts on it. I choose E, I know its very far fetched but felt like better than A at least which actually strengthen the argument in my POV.

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Altho

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Purebred dogs are prone to genetically determined abnormalities. Altho

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia