Good variable setup is what makes this clean. Let me walk through it.
Let:
c1 = cats in Cedar, d1 = dogs in Cedar
c2 = cats in Harbor, d2 = dogs in Harbor
We're told c1 > d1 (Cedar: more cats) and d2 > c2 (Harbor: more dogs). Question: is c1 + d1 > c2 + d2?
1. Statement (1): c2 = 2d1 + 2.
This tells us Harbor's cat count in terms of Cedar's dog count. But c1, d2 are free to be anything.
Try d1=1, c1=2 (Cedar total=3), c2=4, d2=5 (Harbor total=9). Cedar < Harbor.
Try d1=10, c1=100 (Cedar total=110), c2=22, d2=23 (Harbor total=45). Cedar > Harbor.
Two opposite answers — Statement 1 alone is not sufficient.
2. Statement (2): c1 = 2d2 + 2.
Cedar's cat count is pinned to Harbor's dog count. Now something interesting happens.
Cedar total = c1 + d1 = (2d2 + 2) + d1.
Since both shelters house cats AND dogs, d1 >= 1.
So Cedar total >= 2d2 + 3.
Harbor total = c2 + d2. Since d2 > c2, we know c2 <= d2 - 1.
So Harbor total <= (d2 - 1) + d2 = 2d2 - 1.
Cedar total >= 2d2 + 3 and Harbor total <= 2d2 - 1.
Cedar always has more animals. The answer to the question is always YES. Statement 2 alone is sufficient.
Answer: B.
The trap here is that Statement 1 feels like it's giving a useful relationship, so many people rush to "C." But Statement 1 connects Harbor's cats to Cedar's dogs while leaving Cedar's total completely free to swing either way. Statement 2 directly links Cedar's largest category (cats, since c1 > d1) to Harbor's largest category (dogs, since d2 > c2), and that constraint is tight enough to lock in the comparison.