Official answer: B

Stated reasoning: The statement draws a conclusion about people who train their dogs based on statistics relating only to people who take their dogs for formal obedience training classes. In order for the statement to be correct, then, these statistics must be valid for all people who train their dogs, not only those who train them in formal classes. Choice B plugs this hole in the argument, thus making the conclusion necessarily true.

First of all, it is ambigious which dog owners "these" (in the 2nd sentence) refers to. Is it American dog owners or American dog owners that enroll their dogs in obedience training? Assuming they mean the latter (which is what the stated reasoning seems to suggest), I still disagree with the solution:

The study tells us:
1) 10% of dog owners use formal dog training
2) 20% of these owners who use formal dog training participate in dog shows

In order to be able to draw the conclusion that "people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than are people who do not train their dogs," don't we need to know whether 20% represents a disproportionate percentage? In other words, don't we need to know what percentage of dog owners who do not enroll their dogs in formal training (ie. the other 90% of American dog owners) participate in dog shows? If that proportion is also 20% or anything greater, then the conclusion is flawed.

I do not see how the OA resolves this logic gap at all. In fact, none of the statements do. The best answer I would pick is A since it eliminates the possibility of anyone but those dog owners who use formal dog training to participate in dog shows. In other words, it makes the proportion of those other dog owners who participate in dog shows 0%, thereby proving the conclusion.

Can someone please explain why I'm wrong?

IMO C

A is definitely wrong.

It says about the ability of the digs not about the likelihood of the dog owners participating in the show.

I selected C

Dog owners who participate in the dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience trainig lessons


it stops any other way to train the dog .

I am unable to understand b.

paes wrote:IMO C

A is definitely wrong.

It says about the ability of the digs not about the likelihood of the dog owners participating in the show.

Yes, but it precludes the possibility of non formally-trained dogs participating in dog shows, guaranteeing that more trained dogs than untrained dogs (0) are in those shows.

paes wrote:I selected C

Dog owners who participate in the dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience trainig lessons

it stops any other way to train the dog.

But how does that prove owners with untrained dogs aren't participating in dog shows? Maybe 50% of owners who do not train their dogs (formal or not) participate in dog shows. That would contradict the conclusion.

I read the argument again.

And I understand that the answer is B.

B is filling the gap between premises and conclusion.

Premise :

more than 20 percent of these dog owners (who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes) ,participate in dog shows.

Conclusion :

Thus, it is obvious that people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than are people who do not train their dogs.

See the highlighted text.
B is filling this gap.

Yes - has to be B:

The "people who train dogs" --- they can do it by: (a) formal training; (b) other forms of training/oside formal classes

To draw a conclusion regarding the people who train dogs while linking it to likelihood to participate in shows --- all forms of dog training should be in the answer --- B does that and is the best answer.

But how is it obvious that people who train their dogs (whether it's through formal or informal training) are more likely to participate in dog shows? We don't know if 20% is an above-average proportion. Maybe of the people who don't train their dogs (formally or informally), 30% of them participate in dog shows. Wouldn't that undermine the conclusion?

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see how the existing responses address this issue at all. Can someone please attack my rationale directly to show me where I'm going wrong? Maybe an expert's input? Thanks!

Good qn. Was not able to understand 'B' initially.

newbie88 wrote:A study showed that only ten percent of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than 20 percent of these dog owners, the study also showed, participate in dog shows. Thus, it is obvious that people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than are people who do not train their dogs.

The conclusion above is correct provided which of the following is true?

A) It is impossible for a dog to compete in a dog show if the dog has not completed at least one formal obedience training class

B) The proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outsied such classes

C) Dog owners who participate in the dog shows only train their dogs by enrolling them in formal obedience trainig lessons

D) Participation in dog shows is a reliable indicator of how much attention a dog owner pays to his dog

E) Only purebred dogs can participate in dog shows, so many owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes are excluded from this activity.

ummm i selected C for the answer
i think "these dog owners " here are the dog owners who participate in formal obidience
and i suppose than the training dogs outside or inside such classes is irrelevant.........
hmmm reread the argument i am not sure my answer

To me the answer is A
actually this is the assumption Q. we should find an answer choice that must be true in order to make the argument valid
training in formal class (cause)---> effect( participate in dog show)
the unstated assumption for this question is that the participation in the official training consider one of the prerequisite of participation in dog show.
bringing the formal or informal training class in to the case is irrelevant

In this question the author is using a study conducted on only 10% of American Dog owners to make a claim as broad as "people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than are people who do not train their dogs. "

So he is using a small sample in his study and generalizing to a larger group.

(B) justifies his grounds to do so, since it tells us the small sample appropriately represents the larger group...

I like paes answer about how B is filling in the gap...its acting like as the CR bible would say "the correct supporter"

Since this is a must be true question, we shouldn't bring in outside information

The conclusion is drawn between two groups - those people who train their dogs vs those who don't train their dog are more likely to participate in dog shows

In choice B, the proportion of dog owners is between those owners who enroll their dogs in formal training classes and those who train their dogs outside such classes

The argument doesn't mention the latter group at all. Unless I am supposed to infer that if 10% of dog owners enroll their pets in formal training classes the other 90% enroll them in regular training classes. In this case, the conclusion drawn would be incorrect. This makes me wonder if this argument is worded correctly or not