A behavioral psychologist interested in animal behavior noticed that

Question

A behavioral psychologist interested in animal behavior noticed that dogs who are never physically disciplined (e.g., with a blow from a rolled-up newspaper) never bark at strangers. She concluded that the best way to keep a dog from barking at strange visitors is to not punish the dog physically.

The psychologist’s conclusion is based on which of the following assumptions?

A. Striking a dog with a newspaper or other object is an inappropriate method for conditioning canine behavior.

B. Dogs that are never physically disciplined grow up more well-adjusted than dogs that have been subjected to such discipline.

C. There were no instances of an unpunished dog barking at a stranger that had not been observed.

D. Dogs normally bark only at strangers who have previously been physically abortive or threatening.

E. Human children who are physically disciplined are more likely to react negatively to strangers than those who are not.

brooksbrahs · Answer

C and A IMO. The author is basically saying that because X happened within sample Y, X won't happen elsewhere: a classic flaw in scientific reasoning. C and A are the ones that both address this flaw with the conclusion.

Does anyone know what the OA is?

ChallengeAnything · Answer

Claims:
dogs who are never physically disciplined (e.g., with a blow from a rolled-up newspaper) never bark at strangers

Assumption:
Since, dogs must bark at strangers in ought to alert the owner. 
So,What makes a dog bark at strangers?

Conclusion:
No physical punishment = keep from barking

1) The psychologist’s conclusion is based on which of the following assumptions?

A. Striking a dog with a newspaper or other object is an inappropriate method for conditioning canine behavior.
 Striking itself is a punishment. Negates the conclusion 
B. Dogs that are never physically disciplined grow up more well-adjusted than dogs that have been subjected to such discipline.
 Compares dogs with their nature. But,who barks more and who barks less? Out of way 
C. There were no instances of an unpunished dog barking at a stranger that had not been observed.
 no instances of unpunished dog barking = there may be instances of punished dog barking (w.r.t author's notice)
So assuming that dogs are not punished then they will not bark. Assumption fits 
D. Dogs normally bark only at strangers who have previously been physically abortive or threatening.
 Conditional. past doesn't necessarily be same as present 
E. Human children who are physically disciplined are more likely to react negatively to strangers than those who are not.
 Human Children? Irrelevant

2)Suppose the psychologist decides to pursue her project further, and she studies 25 dogs that are known to bark at strangers. Which of the following possible findings would undermine her original conclusion?

Conclusion:
No physical punishment = Keep dogs from barking atstrangers

(Study is on dogs that are known to bark. 
So findings should talk about physical punishment and negate the conclusion)

A. Some of the owners of the dogs studied did not physically punish the dog when it barked at a stranger.
 Statement says (No physical punishment and barked). Talks about Physical punishment but Conditional.
Some of the dogs were not physically punished.It means 2 dogs can get the punishment or may be 10 dogs get the punishment. But all dogs are known to bark  
B. Some of the dogs studied were never physically punished.
 Statement says Few punished, few are not, but still all the dogs are known to bark. Doesn't support the conclusion 
C. The owners of some of the dogs studied believe that a dog which barks at strangers is a good watchdog.
 Irrelevant. Because, it's not about the good dog or bad dog 
D. Some of the dogs barked at people who were not strangers.
 Doesn't talk about physical punishment. Conditional. 
E. None of the dogs was disciplined by the method of a rolled-up newspaper.
 Talks about the punishment method (from author's example: dogs who are never physically disciplined (e.g., with a blow from a rolled-up newspaper never bark at strangers). None of the dogs was disciplined, but the study is on dogs which are known to bark.
This inference violates the conclusion.

Answers: C and E

MacFauz · Answer

Answer should be C & B. The conclusion is that unpunished dogs wont bark. B clearly undermines this conclusion.

Also, E is not right because "a rolled up newspaper" was only an example. B takes on a broader scope and hence is a better answer choice. Also E should be "None of the dogs were disciplined by the method of a rolled-up newspaper.".

edit : B & B. WRONGLY READ B as C. Find myself doing that very often.

. Hope the same doesn't happen on test day.

Kudos Please... If my post helped

. Hope the same doesn't happen on test day. Kudos Please... If my post helped

Vips0000 · Answer

Notice the conclusion -  best way  to keep a dog from barking at strange visitors is to not punish the dog physically
There is an underlying assumption in this conclusion that dogs that are never physically disciplined would behave better with strangers than dogs that have been subjected to such discipline. 
Only such an assumption would allow author to conclude strongly with 'best way".
statement B states same thing.
Hence Ans B it is.

For second question. again, the statement B undermines the original conclusion. If even 1 dog that was never punished barked at strander then that would mean the original conclusion was flawed.
Hence Ans B it is again.

For both questions, B is the answer.

Hope it helps.

HiteshPunjabi · Answer

Got C & B. reading the above posts, am not clear what the actual OA is. Can someone post the OA pls.

Q1) Is more confusing. Below line of reasoning for C. Only close contenders are B&C.

1) The psychologist’s conclusion is based on which of the following assumptions?
B. Dogs that are never physically disciplined grow up more well-adjusted than dogs that have been subjected to such discipline. -- 
C. There were no instances of an unpunished dog barking at a stranger that had not been observed. --- .

Kindly point out if any mistakes.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

The question is not very GMAT-like.

Premises:
A psychologist noticed that dogs who are never physically disciplined never bark at strangers.

Conclusion: The best way to keep a dog from barking at strange visitors is to not punish the dog physically.

She is assuming that she has observed all cases of dogs who are never physically disciplined. It is a case of inferring a generalization from specific examples. If you study 5 cases and the same thing happens in all 5, it doesn't mean that something else cannot happen in some other case that you haven't observed. 
So she is assuming that there were no instances of an unpunished dog barking at a stranger that had not been observed.

If you still have doubt, use assumption negation.

Negating (C): there WERE instances of an unpunished dog barking at a stranger that had not been observed.

Now can you say that the best way to keep a dog from barking at strange visitors is to not punish the dog physically? No. Now the conclusion cannot hold.

So (c) is your assumption.

KarishmaB · Answer

The conclusion of her study was: the best way to keep a dog from barking at strange visitors is to not punish the dog physically.

If there were cases where the dogs were never physically punished but they barked at strangers, her conclusion would be undermined.
Hence answer is (B).

Notice that (A) is not the answer since we need to ensure that the dogs were never physically punished, not just when they barked at strangers.

AliciaFeng · Answer

Premise: (dogs) no physical discipline(=physical punishment)---> no barking

Conclusion: no punishment ---> no barking

If this is true, then the contrapositive must be true: barking ---> punishment

then, let's find the underlying assumption.

In real life, a dog barks for multiple reasons. e.g. the dog is hungry, or the dog is published.

The author believes her argument is airtight, so she must believe punishment is the only reason a dog barks.

Defender Assumption: eliminate other reasons.

option C eliminated the others possibilities. C is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device

vimys1991 · Answer

Doesnt C mean that all the instances of unpunished dog barking have been observed? In that case it would not fit the assumption

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A behavioral psychologist interested in animal behavior noticed that

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A behavioral psychologist interested in animal behavior noticed that

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards