boybread5
GMATNinja, how would you tackle this type of problem? I think what is challenging for me still is I am looking for an answer that strengthens the conclusion "dogs are
more motivated to help other dogs they know
than to help unfamiliar dogs."
I feel like E does not directly support the conclusion that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs vs. unfamiliar dogs. It seems to strengthen the conclusion that dogs are motivated to help familiar dogs because they're giving them food, but it doesn't support that they're willing to help familiar dogs more than unfamiliar dogs.
Just confused what I'm missing here.
This is a tricky one, and (E) definitely feels a bit indirect.
If (E) is NOT true, then that would be evidence that the dogs are NOT really motivated by a desire
to help other dogs. Maybe, for example, the dogs just become more playful or energetic when they see familiar dogs, and so they are more inclined to pull that handle, perhaps just for fun.
So we could argue that the dogs with access to the handle are NOT actually motivated by a desire to
help other dogs, familiar or not. If that's the case, then the experiment results do NOT necessarily suggest that dogs are more motivated to help dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.
In other words, if (E) is not true, then the motivation
to help might not be a factor at all. (E) strengthens the argument by eliminating that possibility.
I hope that helps!