mSKR wrote:
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.
Quote:
A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person
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.
Quote:
B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog
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.
Quote:
C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly
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.
Quote:
D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food
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).
Quote:
E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty
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
close
20 Apr 2021, 01:45
