Bunuel wrote:
To attract new visitors, the local zoo is planning to offer new experiences. One proposal involves allowing visitors to assist in feeding the big cats, such as the lions and the tigers. However, unlike the zookeepers, visitors do not spend time interacting with the cats and becoming familiar to them. Enacting this plan would be like inviting people to enter the home of a well-armed stranger without knocking.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the argument?
(A) Visitors have not spent as much time studying the behavior of big cats as the zookeepers have.
(B) Those who would be most interested in opportunities to assist in feeding big cats are already regular visitors and would not bring along new visitors.
(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos.
(E) Feeding big cats requires entering their habitat, which can only be done safely after previous interaction with the animals.
KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPEThis is a Strengthen question; you’ll need to find something in the answer choices that supports the argument in the stimulus.
STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUSThe author uses an analogy to argue that allowing visitors to help feed the big cats would be dangerous. The reason is that the cats don’t get to know the visitors like they do the zookeepers.
STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWERWhat if people could help feed the cats without actually interacting with the animals? That would take away the danger, making the author’s argument fall apart. So to strengthen the argument, show that feeding the cats involves a risk of physical contact.
STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES(E) does exactly that, making it correct. (A) states that visitors are not as knowledgeable as the zookeepers. However, the argument hinges on how well the cats know the people feeding them, not the other way around. Moreover, this statement still provides no evidence that visitors —well-informed or not—would be put in any danger, as the author concludes. (B) addresses the wrong idea. The zoo may be looking to attract new visitors, but the author is only concerned about safety, not whether the zoo is successful in increasing attendance. (C) confirms the potential danger of entering a stranger’s home unannounced. However, the author brings up this situation as an analogy, and knowing more about the danger of committing a home invasion does not confirm that feeding big cats is equivalently dangerous. (D) mentions people’s experience interacting with wild animals in general, while the argument is about whether the big cats in this zoo will have had prior exposure to the visitors. More importantly, this comparison of visitors to non-visitors is irrelevant as it still does not make a connection between greater interaction and safety.