Last visit was: 18 Jul 2025, 16:40 It is currently 18 Jul 2025, 16:40
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
gmatt1476
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Last visit: 27 Mar 2025
Posts: 334
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 62
Posts: 334
Kudos: 24,316
 [262]
16
Kudos
Add Kudos
244
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATIntensive
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Last visit: 09 Jun 2025
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
2,018
 [146]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Posts: 67
Kudos: 2,018
 [146]
114
Kudos
Add Kudos
31
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 2,052
Own Kudos:
9,704
 [9]
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
Posts: 2,052
Kudos: 9,704
 [9]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
ArtVandaley
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Last visit: 05 Feb 2022
Posts: 290
Own Kudos:
418
 [6]
Given Kudos: 120
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
Posts: 290
Kudos: 418
 [6]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry GMATNinja egmat
I didnt even understand what E is trying to convey. Visible but not in the enclosure? What does that even mean? Besides how does helping a familiar dog is relavant to being in the enclosure or being visible?

PLease help
avatar
panopticon
Joined: 01 Feb 2019
Last visit: 01 Feb 2024
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
21
 [2]
Given Kudos: 99
Location: Canada
Schools: Molson '20
GPA: 3.96
Schools: Molson '20
Posts: 17
Kudos: 21
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ArtVandaley


I know you requested expert help, but I'll give it a shot.

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

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

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty


In this experiment, the scientist came to the conclusion that the reason a dog provided more food to an familiar dog in an enclosure than to an unfamiliar dog in a separate enclosure is that the "participant" dog prefers to help a familiar dog than an unfamiliar dog. More specifically, if a familiar or unfamiliar dog is in an enclosure, it means that it may require help.

Choice E states that the enclosure (e.g. dog requiring help) may have nothing to do with it... the dog may be, in fact, just more likely to provide more food, or press the handle more, when this dog merely sees a familiar dog, whether that familiar dog is in an enclosure or not. Well, this would then mean that the dog doesn't necessarily care about helping. It just puts more food into an enclosure when it sees a familiar dog that is in that enclosure or anywhere visible (not necessarily in that enclosure). It may also be the case that when the dog sees an unfamiliar dog that is in the enclosure or anywhere around it, it will not press the handle as much (for some reason that we have not identified..

The key here is whether dog cares about helping or not. We can weaken the scientist's interpretation of the results if we can show that the dog may not care about helping.
User avatar
gmatt1476
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Last visit: 27 Mar 2025
Posts: 334
Own Kudos:
24,316
 [7]
Given Kudos: 62
Posts: 334
Kudos: 24,316
 [7]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatt1476
Scientist: 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. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

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

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty


CR04161.01

Official Explantion

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five experimental outcomes, if added to the information given, would most strengthen the evidence for the scientist's conclusion?

There were three enclosures, two of which contained a dog. Only one of these contained a familiar dog. The dogs released more food to familiar dogs than to unfamiliar dogs. The scientists thereby concluded that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than they are to help unfamiliar dogs.

However, it is possible that releasing the food to the familiar dog could have been motivated by other reasons. For example, the dog could simply be trying to communicate with the familiar dog rather than necessarily trying specifically to help this dog.

If the dogs released more food to a familiar dog while it was contained in an enclosure than when it was not enclosed yet nearby and visible, this would strengthen the idea of trying to “help” the other dog.

A. This information would weaken the scientist's argument. It introduces information suggesting the presence of a confounding variable in the experimental setup. That is, if the behavior was encouraged by a familiar person, we would not be able to tell whether it was this person's presence or the presence of the other dog that increased the behavior.

B. This would suggest that the dog's activation of the lever was not contingent on providing food to another animal. In other words, if the dog provides food even when there is no animal to provide food for, then it follows that the presence of the other dog is irrelevant to this behavior.

C. The experimental setup described here introduces the factor of friendliness. Adding this extra factor could easily confound testing of the original hypothesis, which suggested that simple familiarity increased the behavior.

D. The experimental setup described here introduces a factor of food interest. Adding this extra factor could easily confound testing of the original hypothesis, which suggested that simple familiarity increased the behavior.

E. Correct. This information would strengthen the hypothesis that a desire to help a familiar dog was operative in the dog's behavior.

The correct answer is E.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 08 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,345
Own Kudos:
3,667
 [3]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,345
Kudos: 3,667
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatt1476
Scientist: 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. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

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

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty


CR04161.01

I received a request that I comment.

Premise:
The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog.
Conclusion:
Dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

The correct answer must strengthen the link between the release of food and the desire to HELP a familiar dog.
Note:
To receive food in the experiment, a dog must be in the enclosure.

E: The dogs tended to release more food when a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty.
Here, a familiar dog in the enclosure would receive food and thus would be HELPED, while a familiar dog that was visible but NOT in the enclosure would NOT receive any food and thus would NOT be helped -- STRENGTHENING the link between the release of food and the desire to HELP a familiar dog.

User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
420
 [6]
Given Kudos: 167
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 237
Kudos: 420
 [6]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The question is:

Why does the dog typically release more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog?

Is it because the dog is more interested in helping the dog they know? Or is there any other reason?

If, as D says, the dog released more food to the uninterested dog than to the interested dog, then this is, if anything, a weakener. It suggests that whatever the dog's reason for pushing the lever, it wasn't to help the other dog -- since releasing food to an apparently-uninterested subject would not, presumably, help that subject. And if releasing food is not about helping, then the conclusion fails -- the dog is not trying to help the familiar dog by pushing the lever. So D is out.

(I'm not quite sure I fully understood your comment in favor of D. If I have not addressed your concern, please clarify and I'll try again.)

As for E, if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

Does this make sense?
User avatar
zoezhuyan
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 429
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 429
Kudos: 92
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AnthonyRitz
The question is:

Why does the dog typically release more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog?

Is it because the dog is more interested in helping the dog they know? Or is there any other reason?

If, as D says, the dog released more food to the uninterested dog than to the interested dog, then this is, if anything, a weakener. It suggests that whatever the dog's reason for pushing the lever, it wasn't to help the other dog -- since releasing food to an apparently-uninterested subject would not, presumably, help that subject. And if releasing food is not about helping, then the conclusion fails -- the dog is not trying to help the familiar dog by pushing the lever. So D is out.

(I'm not quite sure I fully understood your comment in favor of D. If I have not addressed your concern, please clarify and I'll try again.)

As for E, if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

Does this make sense?

thanks for your quick reply AnthonyRitz

what makes me favor of D of that some similar scenario around my life, like following:

when I went to a book store, and I spent sometime to find an interesting book, and my behavior showed I did not find an interesting book.
a shop assistant realized my problem, and (s)he helped me to find an interesting book.

so in my opinion, if I showed uninterested in something, and someone came to help me.

similar, if a dog showed uninterested in food, another dog came to help it.

that's why I tough D shows the dog's motivation to help.

please point out my reasoning bug.

thanks in advance.
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 167
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 237
Kudos: 420
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
AnthonyRitz
The question is:

Why does the dog typically release more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog?

Is it because the dog is more interested in helping the dog they know? Or is there any other reason?

If, as D says, the dog released more food to the uninterested dog than to the interested dog, then this is, if anything, a weakener. It suggests that whatever the dog's reason for pushing the lever, it wasn't to help the other dog -- since releasing food to an apparently-uninterested subject would not, presumably, help that subject. And if releasing food is not about helping, then the conclusion fails -- the dog is not trying to help the familiar dog by pushing the lever. So D is out.

(I'm not quite sure I fully understood your comment in favor of D. If I have not addressed your concern, please clarify and I'll try again.)

As for E, if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

Does this make sense?

thanks for your quick reply AnthonyRitz

what makes me favor of D of that some similar scenario around my life, like following:

when I went to a book store, and I spent sometime to find an interesting book, and my behavior showed I did not find an interesting book.
a shop assistant realized my problem, and (s)he helped me to find an interesting book.

so in my opinion, if I showed uninterested in something, and someone came to help me.

similar, if a dog showed uninterested in food, another dog came to help it.

that's why I tough D shows the dog's motivation to help.

please point out my reasoning bug.

thanks in advance.

Ah, see, the problem appears to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "uninterested." If you are "uninterested" in something it means you do not want it. If I'm uninterested in food, I don't need help, I don't need food, I'm not interested. So it wouldn't be helping to dump food into my enclosure. If I'm uninterested in books, I'm probably not walking around a bookstore in the first place. But even if I am in a bookstore looking around, if I appear uninterested in books (i.e. if I appear not to have any desire to find a book), it would be totally inappropriate and actively unhelpful for a salesperson to come and try to show me books -- books that, again, I am not interested in. Being "uninterested" in something is not a condition of wanting or needing someone to rectify your "interest" in that thing.
User avatar
Sneha2021
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 319
Own Kudos:
35
 [1]
Given Kudos: 523
Location: India
Posts: 319
Kudos: 35
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle GMATNinja
I am not able to understand option E.
Can you please help?
My understanding of the argument:
A familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty -->What does that even mean? A familiar dog was not inside the enclosure. It was roaming around, hence the enclosure was empty. The visible dog will not have access to the food.
I am not able to imagine the situation.

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 3,876
Own Kudos:
3,574
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,876
Kudos: 3,574
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sneha2021
EducationAisle GMATNinja
I am not able to understand option E.
Can you please help?
My understanding of the argument:
A familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty -->What does that even mean? A familiar dog was not inside the enclosure. It was roaming around, hence the enclosure was empty. The visible dog will not have access to the food.
I am not able to imagine the situation.
Well, for all you know, both the dogs (the dog with access to handle and the familiar dog) could be on the same side (both of them, outside the enclosure).

Hope you are able to imagine the situation now. :)
User avatar
mSKR
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,309
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,309
Kudos: 929
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,380
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,380
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mSKR
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
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,601
Own Kudos:
32,367
 [2]
Given Kudos: 687
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,601
Kudos: 32,367
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatt1476
Scientist: 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. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

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

A. the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

C. an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

D. a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

E. a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty


CR04161.01
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.
User avatar
Namangupta1997
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Apr 2025
Posts: 146
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 146
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AnthonyRitz
The question is:

Why does the dog typically release more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog?

Is it because the dog is more interested in helping the dog they know? Or is there any other reason?

If, as D says, the dog released more food to the uninterested dog than to the interested dog, then this is, if anything, a weakener. It suggests that whatever the dog's reason for pushing the lever, it wasn't to help the other dog -- since releasing food to an apparently-uninterested subject would not, presumably, help that subject. And if releasing food is not about helping, then the conclusion fails -- the dog is not trying to help the familiar dog by pushing the lever. So D is out.

(I'm not quite sure I fully understood your comment in favor of D. If I have not addressed your concern, please clarify and I'll try again.)

As for E, if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

Does this make sense?

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?
User avatar
AnthonyRitz
User avatar
Stacy Blackman Consulting Director of Test Prep
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
420
 [1]
Given Kudos: 167
Affiliations: Stacy Blackman Consulting
Location: United States (DC)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
GPA: 3.11
WE:Education (Education)
GMAT 1: 790 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 237
Kudos: 420
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Namangupta1997
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:

AnthonyRitz
if the dog releases more food when the familiar dog is in the enclosure than when the familiar dog is merely present, then it's not the mere sight of a familiar dog, but the actual desire to help the familiar dog by giving it food, that must motivate this action. Like, maybe the dog just gets excited by the sight of a familiar dog, and wants to show its friend this new "lever" trick it has learned. But in that case it would push the lever whenever the familiar dog is present, whether or not the familiar dog is helped by this action. E rules out this alternative explanation by saying, "no, this only happens when the familiar dog is not just present but actually helped by the food."

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!
User avatar
Kavicogsci
Joined: 13 Jul 2024
Last visit: 09 Feb 2025
Posts: 173
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 154
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
Posts: 173
Kudos: 69
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun why cant we look at B in this way -

Given fact - Preferred Familiar over Unfamiliar
B ) Preferred empty over Unfamiliar - this shows absolute disdain for unfamiliar and by premise we already known familiar is preferred over unfamiliar so why cant this be perfect strengthener?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 01 Jun 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,059
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kavicogsci
AjiteshArun why cant we look at B in this way -

Given fact - Preferred Familiar over Unfamiliar
B ) Preferred empty over Unfamiliar - this shows absolute disdain for unfamiliar and by premise we already known familiar is preferred over unfamiliar so why cant this be perfect strengthener?
Hi Kavicogsci,

I get where you're coming from on this, but I'd want to avoid options that ~increase the food released to empty enclosures. Also, I generally try to avoid edge cases if possible, so I'd go in looking for motivation generally, and within motivation, familiar > unfamiliar.

What I mean by this is that we know food released to familiar dogs (F) > food released to unfamiliar dogs (U). Option B tells us food released to empty enclosures (E) > U. But what is the relationship between F and E? If E > F, that may mean that dogs pull the handle randomly, for fun, or maybe they just generally don't like helping other dogs. It'd definitely not strengthen the conclusion. So E > F > U isn't good.

I'd be careful about F > E > U as well. That's sort of edge case territory, because we'd be saying that not only are dogs more motivated to help familiar dogs, they are actively working against unfamiliar dogs by giving them less food than to an empty enclosure. Personally, I'd be much happier with {F > U} > {E}.
User avatar
chandy123
Joined: 12 Nov 2024
Last visit: 29 Jun 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q82 V85 DI78
GPA: 7
WE:Project Management (Commercial Banking)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q82 V85 DI78
Posts: 53
Kudos: 74
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The scientist’s argument centers on the idea that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than unfamiliar ones. To strengthen this argument, we need evidence that directly supports the differential motivation based on familiarity.

Option B: “the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog”

If dogs release more food when the enclosure is empty compared to when it contains an unfamiliar dog, this suggests that unfamiliar dogs do not motivate the dogs to help. This contrasts with the original finding that familiar dogs do increase the likelihood of releasing food. Therefore, this comparison directly supports the notion that familiarity plays a significant role in motivating the dogs to help.

Why the Other Options Are Less Effective:
• Option A: Focuses on human encouragement rather than the dogs’ motivation towards other dogs.
• Option C: Introduces the variable of the unfamiliar dog’s behavior (hostility vs. friendliness), which could confound the results rather than directly supporting the role of familiarity.
• Option D: Concerns the unfamiliar dog’s interest in the food, which is unrelated to the motivation to help based on familiarity.
• Option E: While it supports the effect of a familiar dog, it doesn’t directly compare the impact of familiar versus unfamiliar dogs.

Conclusion: Option B provides a clear comparison that reinforces the scientist’s argument by showing that unfamiliar dogs do not motivate the dogs to help as much as when the enclosure is empty, thereby highlighting the importance of familiarity.

Answer:
B. the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts