Hi AndrewN sir,

The options are remotely related with argument. I find it really hard to reach at correct answer with satisfaction.

Could you please share your thoughts on this question? How did you handle it ?
What learning I can have from this question.

Please suggest

thanks!

Hello, mSKR. As GMAT™ questions go, this is one of the more realistic scenarios that I could see playing out in a lab. If you read the argument again, you will see that the scientist puts forth the notion that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs. From the perspective of the dog controlling the handle, then, inasmuch as we are able to do so, we need to reinforce the relationship that helping familiar dogs > helping unfamiliar dogs.


The argument is not concerned with a lack of familiarity in general, only with a lack of familiarity with other dogs compared to more familiar ones. This sort of broadening or generalizing of the argument is off the mark.


I have not drawn attention to any particular words because the entire answer choice sheds light on a different comparison, that between no dog and an unfamiliar dog. Although this outcome may show how much the handle-controlling dog seems to disfavor an unfamiliar dog, we are missing a key component of the crucial comparison between familiar and unfamiliar dogs. We need to keep looking for a safer bet.


Again, the comparison is skewed. Not only are we dealing with one unfamiliar dog and another, but the emphasis has shifted to hostility instead of familiarity. We are not interested in the degrees to which the handle-controlling dog may disfavor unfamiliar dogs. This should be another easy elimination.


This comparison runs in the same vein as the one in the previous answer choice, but now we have completely shifted focus from anything pertaining to familiarity to dogs in general, and instead of looking at degrees of hostility, we are considering degrees of interest, interest in food in particular. But such a comparison has nothing to do with the argument presented, and we can get rid of it on the same grounds as we did (C).


Granted, we are missing any sort of comparison between familiar and unfamiliar dogs, but at the same time, we do see that a dog would be more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help no dog at all. To strengthen an argument based on a dog helping familiar dogs, we should look for an answer that reinforces the same. I would feel better about this answer choice if it included something about unfamiliar dogs, but at the same time, such additional information might offer nothing more than a recapitulation of the passage. In short, this is the safest answer of the five presented, so that is why we ought to choose it.

I hope that helps address your concerns. I am not sure what take the other Experts may have had on the question, but just seeing somewhat lengthy responses by GMATIntensive, GMATGuruNY, and AnthonyRitz gives me confidence that there are some top-notch insights already in the thread.

Thank you for bringing the question to my attention. (I do not own the GMAT™ Advanced guide, so this question was new to me.)

- Andrew
_________________

Passage Analysis

Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure

Scientists conducted an experiment in which dogs were given access to a handle.
The dogs could pull this handle to release food into a nearby cage.

that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty.

The nearby cage contained one of the three- A familiar dog only. An unfamiliar dog only or empty cage.

The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog.

In general, what dogs which pulled the handle did was to release more food to familiar dogs than to unfamiliar dogs.

This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

This result is used to conclude that dogs are more motivated to help dogs known to them rather than unknown dogs.

Question Stem Analysis

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?

This is a strengthen question of a specific type. A result is given- Dogs with the handle release more food to the familiar dog as compared to the unfamiliar dog. Which condition leading to this result will strengthen the conclusion?

Prethinking

Strengthen framework

In what scenario will one have more belief in the conclusion that dogs are more motivated to help dogs known to them rather than unknown dogs.

Given that

• 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.

The dogs with access to the handle tended to release more food when

Strengthener 1- There was a known dog placed in the enclosure than when the enclosure is empty.

Strengthener 2- A known dog inside the enclosure which was hostile than the unknown docile dog .

Answer Choice Analysis

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person
INCORRECT
The familiarity with the person with the dog has no effect in strengthening the conclusion. Only familiarity with the dog in the enclosure counts.

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog
INCORRECT
Here the comparison does not involve the subject of our conclusion- familiar dogs. Hence, this option bears no impact on the conclusion.

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly
INCORRECT
Here the comparison does not involve the subject of our conclusion- familiar dogs. Hence, this option bears no impact on the conclusion.

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food
INCORRECT
Here the comparison does not involve the subject of our conclusion- familiar dogs. We do not even know if the mentioned dog is familiar or not. Whether the said dog is interested or not is hence out of our scope. Hence, this option bears no impact on the conclusion.

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty
CORRECT
Here the option does talk about familiar dogs. The helping part is focused on. Only if the dog is in the enclosure will pulling the handle and thus giving it food act as a way of helping the familiar dog. If the familiar dog is out of the enclosure the handle pulling dog cannot help it the mentioned way. Thus the given comparison correctly strengthens the conclusion that the handle-pulling dog is indeed interested in helping the familiar dog in the enclosure. Since a strengthener does not need to prove the conclusion but simply improve our confidence in it, this option acts as the correct answer.
_________________

Scientist's conclusion: Dogs are motivated to help the dogs they are familiar with.
What we don't know: Effect on helping dogs' behaviour due to the human involved, effect on helping dogs' behaviour because of the behaviour of the dog in the cage



As mentioned above, we don't know the relation between dog and human. Reject.

All we know is that the dog prefer helping familiar dog over unfamiliar dog. We know nothing about the preference of the dog for empty cage. Reject.


Mentioned earlier. influence of the behavior of the dog in cage on the helping dog is not known. Reject.


Same as (C). Reject


Dog's behaviour is influenced by what it sees. And we know the influence of familiar dog on the helping dog. This is correct

Therefore, (E)
_________________

Hi AnthonyRitz

I understand your explanation of option E. But as per the question we have to strengthen that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs rather than unfamiliar dogs. It is basically talking about the motivation to help between familiar and unfamiliar dogs.


Choice E, as you explained, merely proves that the dogs are not motivated by mere presence of a familiar dog. It doesn't touch upon the " familiar vs unfamiliar" dogs premise. What am I missing?

The argument already provides, as a premise, "The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog." So we already infer that the presence of a familiar dog is more motivating than the presence of an unfamiliar dog. That's not a gap. The question is why the familiar dog is more motivating.

I see where someone could get caught fixating on the "familiar vs. unfamiliar" aspect here. It's certainly a piece of the conclusion, but it's not all of it. Let's have another look at the conclusion, and I'd like to refocus our attention on the words motivated and help: "This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs."

So, yes, "The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog." That's a premise, so it's infallible. But why did they do this? Is releasing food helpful to the dog? Even if it is, factually, helpful, is that the dogs' motivation -- their reason -- for choosing to release the food? So this is where I refer back to my previous explanation on this point:



So, again, given the premises we already had, the real gap was not "familiar dog versus unfamiliar dog" -- it was "motivated to help versus some other motivation."

Speaking of help, I hope this does!
_________________