The extremely high cost of running a world class zoo is limiting what

Isn't C strengthening rather than weakening the argument.
C says wealthy people are in fact deciding what animals people should see.
C could still be weakening by showing that the fact that the wealthy people are deciding what to see is not such a bad thing after all.

As without the support of wealthy families, zoo cannot afford exhibits; option C implies that budget of Zoo is irrelevant as it is a meager amount in the whole revenue & would not probably affect much of their operational expense.
Any cut in funding from wealthy families would result in public viewing fewer exhibits.

C is correct because the question accuses the wealth people of displaying less exotic animal, but C states that thanks to wealth people, exotic animals are not sold, assuming that "exotic" are not sold

Below is my reasoning for C:

As per argument: Ticket sales and gift shop receipts are enough for zoo to produce any new exhibits, but the public will see less exotic animals.

As per option C: Without the support of wealthy families, the zoo cannot afford to produce any new exhibits. If zoo cannot even afford to produce any new exhibits, the consideration for showing less/more exotic animals is far fetched.

Here is my reasoning for the question. Should you guys have any comment, I'm glad to know!

Conclusion: Zoo administrators should choose what animals are displayed
This is a weaken question, so we should prove that the above suggestion should not be implemented because it is not a wise decision.
-> Pre-thinking assumptions: Remember that when zoo admin is the one deciding what animals to be seen, it means that wealthy families lose this right! Not sure exactly what will happen then, but almost certainly, the consequence will be LESS ANIMALS TO BE WATCHED by public.

Looking at all answer choices, we can see that except for (C), 4 other options did not clearly point out the negative consequence it will lead to after giving zoo admin the right of decision.

Cannot understand why C has to be the answer.They will eventually sell some of the animals, preferably the exotic ones to get more money, and hence the conclusion of the argument that public will get to see less exotic animals is reinforced.

I think that you may assume that conclusion is [if zoo admin determines what animal to display, then public will see less exotic animals]. But in my opinion, it should be reversed. The conclusion should be: [zoo admin should take the right of decision, otherwise, if wealthy families have this right, fewer exotic animals will be seen]. In other words, because zoo admin will help maintain the number of exotic animals, zoo admin should determine what is displayed.

And answer (C) points out that without wealthy family's help, zoo admin will make negative impacts. => This is a weakener => Correct option.

What do you think about this?

I did the same reasoning, but after some answers here, I think this might have been a logical guess instead of a correct (find conclusion-then weaken conclusion) answer

In my first attempt on this question, I chose option C (You can scroll up to see my first post detailing my reasoning).

I just express my thought on the reason why the above guy didn't understand why (C) is correct. I think knowing the root cause of his/her confuse is necessary.
Besides, if you guys need evaluation of each option, just scroll up and take a look at the above posts. We may not need to repeat it.

@GMATNinja Please throw some light on this question. Option "C" seems to be strengthening the argument. While other options don't seem to be logically correct. Waiting for a reply eagerly.

sayantanc2k , chetan2u

My take on this one is:
Conclusion : if the budget is reduced so that the zoo is supported by ticket sales and gift shop certificates the public will see less exotic animals.
To weaken we need to weaken the claim that the public will see less exotic animals.
going by this logic i chose D which seems to be wrong. Please explain this one.

I don't think this question makes any sense, so I'd suggest test takers just ignore it. It's clearly not an official question.

C is the right answer.. below is my reasoning.
The argument states that Rich families are responsible for the public to see less exotic animals as they choose their own liking and the zoo admin has no authority as such.
Option C says that Without these families support , not only will there be no new exhibits but the zoo will be forced to sell existing animals. Meaning the public actually sees more exhibits in the current scenario wherein the zoo is being supported by rich families.

Let me help you to explain it.

General conclusion: If we reduce the budget, the public will see less exotic animals.

option C says: Zoo will sell some animals to "not to reduce" the budget, but still if animals are sold ..people may get less exotic animals

In short: without reducing the budget people will see less exotic animals.

Hope it helps
Thanks= KUDOS

GMATNinja
GMATNinjaTwo

Request your expert opinion on conclusion, assumption, and overall comprehension of the passage

The extremely high cost of running a world class zoo is limiting what animals are seen by the public. A few, very wealthy families now determine what animals can be acquired and seen. Zoo administrators should choose what animals are displayed. If we reduce the budget so that the zoo is supported only by ticket sales and gift shop receipts, the public will see less exotic animals.

Which statement below, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) The combination of ticket sales and gift shop receipts cannot match the amount of money donated by wealthy families.
(B) Wealthy families will stop supporting the zoo if they are denied all control over how their money is used.
(C) Without the support of wealthy families, the zoo cannot afford to produce any new exhibits and will have to sell some animals.
(D) Some zoos have active breeding programs and literally “grow their own” animals.
(E) Some people go to the zoo regularly—not to see specific animals or new exhibits.

The argument states that the zoo needs wealthy family's support[ <-- (premise)--|--(Conclusion)-->] in order to run the zoo or else they'd have o cut off their budget resulting in a situation where people would have access to less exotic animals.

What if there is another solution, other than reducing the budget one can also reduce the expenses so its dependence on the ones financing is reduced or completely eliminated

let's examine the options now

A- Strengthens
B- Already stated,....in weaken question we need new information
C- States exactly what we want
D- Scope Shift
E- what about the ones who do go to see animals

Hi!

I also think C strengthens the argument! Experts please help