KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
This 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 STIMULUS

The 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 ANSWER
What 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.
_________________

Premise - Visitors do not spend time interacting with the cats and becoming familiar to them.
Conclusion - Enacting this plan would be like inviting people to enter the home of a well-armed stranger without knocking.

Pre Thinking - Why is the plan not safe? Because the visitors don't interact with the cats before they try to feed them.
Any choice that reiterate on it will strengthen the conclusion.

(A) Visitors have not spent as much time studying the behavior of big cats as the zookeepers have.
This information does not add anything much to what stimulus already mentioned " unlike the zookeepers, visitors do not spend time interacting with the cats and becoming familiar to them."
(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.
If so, the plan would not work i.e. to attract new visitors.
(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
This information has nothing to do with the plan of involving visitors.
(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos.
The argument is not concerned about the 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.
This choice emphasizes the need of interaction before safely feeding the cats. This supports the argument's conclusion.

E

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. Irrelevant

(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. Incorrect

weakens argument

(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment. Incorrect

this will decrease visitors, weakens argument

(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos. Incorrect

this is a statement why people visit zoos? it cant explain how visitors increase?

(E) Feeding big cats requires entering their habitat, which can only be done safely after previous interaction with the animals. Correct

repetition visit require for feeding big cats, so people revisit zoos and increase visitors

Pre-thinking: One proposal involves allowing visitors to assist in feeding the big cats, such as the lions and the tigers. Enacting this plan would be like inviting people to enter the home of a well-armed stranger without knocking. For strengthening, we need to see how feeding will help to interact big cats.

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. -> It is not strengthening the conclusion.

(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. -> It is also not answering the question, we are thinking in pre-thinking.

(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment. -> Irrelevant.

(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos. -> But, how will feeding animals lead to more interaction.

(E) Feeding big cats requires entering their habitat, which can only be done safely after previous interaction with the animals. -> We have a relationship of interaction --> feeding big cats. It is as per our pre-thinking.

So, I think E

[quote="Bunuel"]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?


Conclusion - Enacting this plan would be like inviting people to enter the home of a well-armed stranger without knocking.

We can think - In what scenario the plan is not safe?
when the visitors don't interact with the cats before they try to feed them.

(A) Visitors have not spent as much time studying the behavior of big cats as the zookeepers have.
This information does not add anything much to what stimulus already mentioned " unlike the zookeepers, visitors do not spend time interacting with the cats and becoming familiar to them."
(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.
If so, the plan would not work i.e. to attract new visitors.
(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
This information has nothing to do with the plan of involving visitors.
(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos.
The argument is not concerned about the 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.

Correct .. This choice emphasizes the need of interaction before safely feeding the cats. thus strengthens the conclusion.
_________________

IMO E

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?

Add a new information that strengthens the below claim :
Cause : allowing visitors to assist in feeding the big cats without prior experience/interaction
Effect : might cause harm since animals are not used to them

(A) Visitors have not spent as much time studying the behavior of big cats as the zookeepers have.
Re-iterates the same information.

(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.
Does not strengthen the conclusion

(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
Irrelevant

(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos.
Out of scope : People who visit zoos

(E) Feeding big cats requires entering their habitat, which can only be done safely after previous interaction with the animals.
Correct - needed information to prove that the cause -effect relationship is true indeed.

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.
This shows that visitors have spent at least some time studying the behavior of big cats. So, this weakens the conclusion.

(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.
This one does not impact the argument.

(C) Burglars who are attacked by an occupant during a home invasion usually incur serious injuries requiring emergency treatment.
Out of scope.

(D) People who visit zoos have less experience interacting with wild animals than do people who do not visit zoos.
The argument is about BIG CATS and NOT WILD ANIMALS.

(E) Feeding big cats requires entering their habitat, which can only be done safely after previous interaction with the animals.
As most of the visitors had not previously interacted with the animals, it is dangerous for them to feed the big cats.

Choice E is the answer.