Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
16 Apr 2020, 03:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
51% (02:23) correct
49%
(02:31)
wrong
based on 693
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners’ request. They claim that the decrease in the number of stray animals to contend with will offset the costs of the funding. These people fail to realize that over 80 percent of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals, so there will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if funding is provided.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument of the funding opponent EXCEPT:
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
16 Apr 2020, 06:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Concl: Providing funding will not help decrease pets
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets. Incorrect. If this is true then we can see why funding will not help
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city. CorrectThis does not strengthen the concl that spaying would not help But at the same time it doesn't weaken the concl as well because we don't know if the off springs of pets also form strays, Hence it is the correct ans
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered. This strengthens the concl as it gives reason why funding won't help
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong. It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals. It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets. Incorrect. If this is true then we can see why funding will not help
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city. CorrectThis does not strengthen the concl that spaying would not help But at the same time it doesn't weaken the concl as well because we don't know if the off springs of pets also form strays, Hence it is the correct ans
(C) The only way the number of tray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered. This strengthens the concl as it gives reason why funding won't help
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong. It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals. It strengthens by giving reason why funding won't help
17 Apr 2020, 01:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
The correct answer is option (B).
Let us understand why.
Understanding the passage:
1. Opponent of Funding:
a) Some people favour city funding for spaying/neutering of pets, at the request of owners
b) They claim that cost of funding is counter-balanced by the reduced cost of handling stray animals (due to the reduction of stray animals due to neutering)
Logic: Spaying/Neutering of pets => these pets will not breed animals that will end up as strays => Reduction in number of strays
c) These people (some people) do not realise that 80% of pet owners already pay to spay/neuter their pets
d) i.e. Even without funding, 80% of pet owners spay their pets with their own money, so there will not be a significant decrease in number of stray animals, even if funding is provided
Logic: At max, this funding will get the remaining 20% to spay their pets, but this is not a significant enough number to causea reduction in strays.
Question: Find the one statement which is not a strengthener.
Conclusion:
Funding for spaying/neutering to pet owners will not lead to a reduction in the number of strays.
We should find the one statement in the options that does not strengthen the above conclusion.
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
If this is true, then spaying/neutering pets is not useful -> then funding for spaying/neutering is not useful -> strengthens the conclusion.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
if this is true, then
Funding -> more pet owners getting their pets neutered sooner -> Reducing the time available for pets to reproduce and breed more strays -> Reduction in strays -> weakens the conclusion.
Here Funding -> reduction in strays. This weakens our conclusion (Funding -x> Reduction of strays). Hence this is the correct answer.
(C) The only way the number of sray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
If this is true, the it means that pets are not the main reason for the number of strays -> Spaying/neutering spays will not help much to reduce #Strays -> Funding for neutering will not help #Strays -> Strengthens the conclusion.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
If this is true, then even with Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - it is morally wrong!) -> pets may breed more strays -> number of strays will not reduce -> Strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
If this is true, then
1. This means majority (>50%) of pets that are yet to be spayed will not be spayed even with funding (these pets are kept for breeding)
2. Pets are of 2 types - 1. Already spayed -> cannot produce strays
2. Not spayed -> but these will not contribute to strays (majority)
3. What the above means is that the number of strays is not decided by pets, but decided by other factors (probably number of strays)
Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - these pets are kept for breeding) -> these pets will breed but will not produce strays, while other pets are already spayed, will not produce strays -> number of strays will not reduce because of funding (because of no actual impact) -> strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)
Cheers!
Let us understand why.
Understanding the passage:
1. Opponent of Funding:
a) Some people favour city funding for spaying/neutering of pets, at the request of owners
b) They claim that cost of funding is counter-balanced by the reduced cost of handling stray animals (due to the reduction of stray animals due to neutering)
Logic: Spaying/Neutering of pets => these pets will not breed animals that will end up as strays => Reduction in number of strays
c) These people (some people) do not realise that 80% of pet owners already pay to spay/neuter their pets
d) i.e. Even without funding, 80% of pet owners spay their pets with their own money, so there will not be a significant decrease in number of stray animals, even if funding is provided
Logic: At max, this funding will get the remaining 20% to spay their pets, but this is not a significant enough number to causea reduction in strays.
Question: Find the one statement which is not a strengthener.
Conclusion:
Funding for spaying/neutering to pet owners will not lead to a reduction in the number of strays.
We should find the one statement in the options that does not strengthen the above conclusion.
(A) Very few of the stray animals in the city are offspring of pets.
If this is true, then spaying/neutering pets is not useful -> then funding for spaying/neutering is not useful -> strengthens the conclusion.
(B) Many pet owners would have their animals spayed or neutered sooner if funding were provided by the city.
if this is true, then
Funding -> more pet owners getting their pets neutered sooner -> Reducing the time available for pets to reproduce and breed more strays -> Reduction in strays -> weakens the conclusion.
Here Funding -> reduction in strays. This weakens our conclusion (Funding -x> Reduction of strays). Hence this is the correct answer.
(C) The only way the number of sray animals can decrease is if existing strays are spayed or neutered.
If this is true, the it means that pets are not the main reason for the number of strays -> Spaying/neutering spays will not help much to reduce #Strays -> Funding for neutering will not help #Strays -> Strengthens the conclusion.
(D) Most people owners who do not have their pets spayed or neutered believed that spaying and neutering are morally wrong.
If this is true, then even with Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - it is morally wrong!) -> pets may breed more strays -> number of strays will not reduce -> Strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)
(E) The majority of pets that are not spayed or neutered are used for breeding purposes, and are not likely to produce stray animals.
If this is true, then
1. This means majority (>50%) of pets that are yet to be spayed will not be spayed even with funding (these pets are kept for breeding)
2. Pets are of 2 types - 1. Already spayed -> cannot produce strays
2. Not spayed -> but these will not contribute to strays (majority)
3. What the above means is that the number of strays is not decided by pets, but decided by other factors (probably number of strays)
Funding available -> most owners will not get their pets spayed (money is not the reason - these pets are kept for breeding) -> these pets will breed but will not produce strays, while other pets are already spayed, will not produce strays -> number of strays will not reduce because of funding (because of no actual impact) -> strengthens the conclusion (Funding -x> reduction in strays)
Cheers!
