I think it is should be B

dominhtri1995 wrote:I think it is should be B

The original Answer is A
I am looking for an explanation.
I chose E and got it wrong.

What is the source ?
Im not convinced with the OA.
(A) means that there are some reasons that account for the decline other than the crackdown. Hence, it obviously weakens the argument.

rohitacmilan wrote:The number of stray dogs picked up in Ford City last year by the city's dog catchers was fifty percent lower than the previous year's figure. The Mayor of Ford City attributed this decline to the city's recent crackdown on unlicensed breeders that breed dogs dangerously fast and release any unwanted puppies on the streets. Over a dozen operators of these so called "puppy farms" have been incarcerated over the last year in Ford City.

1. Stray dog catching - Reduced by 50%

2. Crackdown of Unlicensed breeders which resulted in release of unwanted puppies on streets.

3. More than a dozen were incarcerated last year.



The passage claims that stray dog catching has declined by 50% due to arrest of Unlicensed breeders which was the root cause of the evil.

Thus according tot he author the decline is attributed mainly due to arrest of unlicensed breeders , however there might be other factors as well like - Rise of Animal Activists prohibiting the practice of stray dog catching , which prevents the gruesome practice of catching stray dogs and killing them , which are overlooked by the author.


In order to weaken the reason we have to point out some flay in the concept of arrest of unlicensed breeders resulting in decline of catching stray dogs.

Among the given options A looks better , it presents us that the reasoning adopted by the auther was based on faulty assumption.

Abhishek009 wrote:

rohitacmilan wrote:The number of stray dogs picked up in Ford City last year by the city's dog catchers was fifty percent lower than the previous year's figure. The Mayor of Ford City attributed this decline to the city's recent crackdown on unlicensed breeders that breed dogs dangerously fast and release any unwanted puppies on the streets. Over a dozen operators of these so called "puppy farms" have been incarcerated over the last year in Ford City.

1. Stray dog catching - Reduced by 50%

2. Crackdown of Unlicensed breeders which resulted in release of unwanted puppies on streets.

3. More than a dozen were incarcerated last year.



The passage claims that stray dog catching has declined by 50% due to arrest of Unlicensed breeders which was the root cause of the evil.

Thus according tot he author the decline is attributed mainly due to arrest of unlicensed breeders , however there might be other factors as well like - Rise of Animal Activists prohibiting the practice of stray dog catching , which prevents the gruesome practice of catching stray dogs and killing them , which are overlooked by the author.


In order to weaken the reason we have to point out some flay in the concept of arrest of unlicensed breeders resulting in decline of catching stray dogs.

Among the given options A looks better , it presents us that the reasoning adopted by the auther was based on faulty assumption.

Abhishek,
Did you miss the word "EXCEPT" in the question stem?
Question is basically asking for WeakenX
in other find a neutral statement (which does nothing) or a strengthening statement.

rohitacmilan wrote:

Abhishek009 wrote:

rohitacmilan wrote:The number of stray dogs picked up in Ford City last year by the city's dog catchers was fifty percent lower than the previous year's figure. The Mayor of Ford City attributed this decline to the city's recent crackdown on unlicensed breeders that breed dogs dangerously fast and release any unwanted puppies on the streets. Over a dozen operators of these so called "puppy farms" have been incarcerated over the last year in Ford City.

1. Stray dog catching - Reduced by 50%

2. Crackdown of Unlicensed breeders which resulted in release of unwanted puppies on streets.

3. More than a dozen were incarcerated last year.



The passage claims that stray dog catching has declined by 50% due to arrest of Unlicensed breeders which was the root cause of the evil.

Thus according tot he author the decline is attributed mainly due to arrest of unlicensed breeders , however there might be other factors as well like - Rise of Animal Activists prohibiting the practice of stray dog catching , which prevents the gruesome practice of catching stray dogs and killing them , which are overlooked by the author.


In order to weaken the reason we have to point out some flay in the concept of arrest of unlicensed breeders resulting in decline of catching stray dogs.

Among the given options A looks better , it presents us that the reasoning adopted by the auther was based on faulty assumption.

Abhishek,
Did you miss the word "EXCEPT" in the question stem?
Question is basically asking for WeakenX
in other find a neutral statement (which does nothing) or a strengthening statement.

oops indeed I missed it , sorry...

Don't know y it's A someone plz explain..

Abhishek009 wrote:

rohitacmilan wrote:

Abhishek009 wrote:

rohitacmilan wrote:The number of stray dogs picked up in Ford City last year by the city's dog catchers was fifty percent lower than the previous year's figure. The Mayor of Ford City attributed this decline to the city's recent crackdown on unlicensed breeders that breed dogs dangerously fast and release any unwanted puppies on the streets. Over a dozen operators of these so called "puppy farms" have been incarcerated over the last year in Ford City.

1. Stray dog catching - Reduced by 50%

2. Crackdown of Unlicensed breeders which resulted in release of unwanted puppies on streets.

3. More than a dozen were incarcerated last year.



The passage claims that stray dog catching has declined by 50% due to arrest of Unlicensed breeders which was the root cause of the evil.

Thus according tot he author the decline is attributed mainly due to arrest of unlicensed breeders , however there might be other factors as well like - Rise of Animal Activists prohibiting the practice of stray dog catching , which prevents the gruesome practice of catching stray dogs and killing them , which are overlooked by the author.


In order to weaken the reason we have to point out some flay in the concept of arrest of unlicensed breeders resulting in decline of catching stray dogs.

Among the given options A looks better , it presents us that the reasoning adopted by the auther was based on faulty assumption.

Abhishek,
Did you miss the word "EXCEPT" in the question stem?
Question is basically asking for WeakenX
in other find a neutral statement (which does nothing) or a strengthening statement.

oops indeed I missed it , sorry...

Don't know y it's A someone plz explain..

I just figured out an explanation for this question.
This is a WeakenX type of question.
Basically we need to look at those options which either strengthen the argument or stays neutral and does nothing. Option A seems to me a classic example of a statement which does nothing to the author's argument. A event occurring in another city may or not get replicated in the Ford City. There is a certain degree of uncertainty. It might be just a coincidence that Ford's neighboring city also experienced a similar decline in street dogs. Official explanation follows

Option B - if at all weakens the argument - if there are less number of staff, it is likely that less number of dogs will be caught, assuming of course no staff does a overtime and compensates for the lack of employees to catch the same number of dogs.

Option C - also weakens the argument because it introduces an alternative cause to the argument. Cold Winter is a climatic factor introduced as an alternative cause.

Option D - also weakens the argument because it introduces an alternative cause. If more and more stray dogs are being put up on the internet for adoption, it is very likely that the number of dogs on the street will decline, assuming people are interested in adopting those dogs as pets.

Option E - Now this is where I got confused. This point doesn't introduces an alternative cause, but points out a flaw in author's reasoning. If the stringent laws are responsible for this sudden decline in stray dogs, then this option weakens the argument by pointing out that such laws were introduced not last year rather many years ago. And the stray dog population didn't dramatically come down after the introduction of these laws, immediately. Hence this option hints that some other causal factor might be in play for this decline of stray dogs.

Hope this explanation helps.

Please points and or correct me if my approach incorrect.[/i]

Rohit,

The official answer is E.

The actual argument is "the crackdown on puppy farms caused the lower number of stray dogs picked up by dog catchers." This is causal in nature and in order to weaken the argument you need to show the causation is flawed - which means that it is not only the crackdown of puppy farms that caused lower number of stray dogs to be picked by dog catchers.

Choice (E) Ford City already had tough laws to punish operators of "puppy farms" long before the most recent year.
This is the only one that does not follow the causal chain. Even if there were tougher laws to punish the operators of "puppy farms", there is no necessity that this law has been enforced and that the crackdown was responsible.

Choice (A) Agange City, located right next to Ford City, also experienced a fifty percent decline in the number of stray dogs caught on its streets by its dog catchers, but did not engage in a crackdown on puppy farms in that city.
This choice does not say exactly what else was responsible for the decline, but it does indicate that the crackdown was not a factor - if Agange City saw the same decline in stray dogs caught, but did not crack down on puppy farms then there must be some other factor that is affecting the number of stray dogs caught. We do not know about the other factor and this could be more of an irrelevant or Out of Scope answer choice.

I hope this clarifies.

ananthbi wrote:Rohit,

The official answer is E.

The actual argument is "the crackdown on puppy farms caused the lower number of stray dogs picked up by dog catchers." This is causal in nature and in order to weaken the argument you need to show the causation is flawed - which means that it is not only the crackdown of puppy farms that caused lower number of stray dogs to be picked by dog catchers.

Choice (E) Ford City already had tough laws to punish operators of "puppy farms" long before the most recent year.
This is the only one that does not follow the causal chain. Even if there were tougher laws to punish the operators of "puppy farms", there is no necessity that this law has been enforced and that the crackdown was responsible.

Choice (A) Agange City, located right next to Ford City, also experienced a fifty percent decline in the number of stray dogs caught on its streets by its dog catchers, but did not engage in a crackdown on puppy farms in that city.
This choice does not say exactly what else was responsible for the decline, but it does indicate that the crackdown was not a factor - if Agange City saw the same decline in stray dogs caught, but did not crack down on puppy farms then there must be some other factor that is affecting the number of stray dogs caught. We do not know about the other factor and this could be more of an irrelevant or Out of Scope answer choice.

I hope this clarifies.

Made a complete mess of this question.
Thanks for clarifying.