Trainer: Research shows that when dogs are neutered in early puppyhood, their leg bones usually do not develop properly. Improper bone development leads in turn to problems with arthritis as dogs grow older. Thus, if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown.
Of the following, which one is a criticism to which the reasoning in the trainer’s argument is most vulnerable?
(A) It fails to state exactly what percentage of dogs neutered in early puppyhood experience improper bone development.
(B) It fails to explain the connection between improper bone development and arthritis.
(C) It fails to address the effects of neutering in middle or late puppyhood.
(D) It fails to consider the possibility that the benefits of neutering a dog early might outweigh the risk of arthritis.
(E) It fails to consider the possibility that dogs with properly developed bones can develop arthritis
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Neutered dogs...
This topic has expert replies
-
Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
IMO E.
A) Doesn't do much since neutered dogs "usually" experience bone issues.
B) Doesn't matter.. not relevant.
C) Not relevant.
D) The argument isn't about maximizing your dog's happiness... it's about protecting your dog from arthritis. So, not relevant.
E) If dogs with properly developed bones may get arthritis, then it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is neutered. So yes.
A) Doesn't do much since neutered dogs "usually" experience bone issues.
B) Doesn't matter.. not relevant.
C) Not relevant.
D) The argument isn't about maximizing your dog's happiness... it's about protecting your dog from arthritis. So, not relevant.
E) If dogs with properly developed bones may get arthritis, then it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is neutered. So yes.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
-
mbadrew
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
- Location: San Francisco
- Thanked: 14 times
You're right. E is a better choice in weakening the arguement.Domnu wrote:IMO E.
A) Doesn't do much since neutered dogs "usually" experience bone issues.
B) Doesn't matter.. not relevant.
C) Not relevant.
D) The argument isn't about maximizing your dog's happiness... it's about protecting your dog from arthritis. So, not relevant.
E) If dogs with properly developed bones may get arthritis, then it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is neutered. So yes.
-
yashanth.ponnanna
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:50 am
- Thanked: 1 times
-
Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
I don't think we need such a relation since the proposition states that improper bone development leads to arthritis.yashanth.ponnanna wrote:I think its B. We need a relation between arthritis and bone development..
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
Well, E could be tempting, but if you read a bit more closely, the statement only says they may get arthritis, so saying that it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is neutered is going too far.Domnu wrote: E) If dogs with properly developed bones may get arthritis, then it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is neutered. So yes
Think of an analogy: If you want to protect your children against the flu you should have them vaccinated. Vaccinated children may, however, contract the flu (the vaccine, although powerful, is not a 100% guarantee that the illness won't knock you down this winter). Following your reasoning you could claim it doesn't matter whether or not you get a vaccine. It doesn't quite add up, does it?
.
-
Domnu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- GMAT Score:740
Yes, but you're making the assumption that the vaccine is powerful.. no such statements are stated in the premises. For example, suppose that 10% of all people who don't get the get the vaccine end up getting the flu. But, suppose that, for some reason, 10% of the people who get the vaccine end up getting the flu (I know... this is probably not plausible, but remember that nowhere in the argument does it state that the vaccine actually helps). Then, our argument is flawed, because it doesn't matter if people are vaccinated or not. (If the latter statistic is 11%, for example, our conclusion would be entirely incorrect). Could you post the OA?
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
nope.. you're not actually damaging my argument. I don't agree but will counter your claims later, don't have time right now. would like to leave the discussion open a bit longer, but since patience doesn't seem to abound in this forumDomnu wrote:Yes, but you're making the assumption that the vaccine is powerful.. no such statements are stated in the premises. For example, suppose that 10% of all people who don't get the get the vaccine end up getting the flu. But, suppose that, for some reason, 10% of the people who get the vaccine end up getting the flu (I know... this is probably not plausible, but remember that nowhere in the argument does it state that the vaccine actually helps). Then, our argument is flawed, because it doesn't matter if people are vaccinated or not. (If the latter statistic is 11%, for example, our conclusion would be entirely incorrect). Could you post the OA?
and since i don't want to wreck your nerves... OA is C Tricky question. got to read carefully.
.
-
mooreliberty
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: AZ
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:680
Why is C more right than E?
The conclusion states: Thus, if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown.
ok, so two ways it is vulnerable to criticism:
1. will the absence of neutering your dog until it is full grown protect your dog from arthritis? (i.e. is there a way to "protect your dog from arthritis" under any circumstance?
2. what will neutering the dog during the middle and late stages of puppyhood do?
Any thoughts? ? ?
The conclusion states: Thus, if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown.
ok, so two ways it is vulnerable to criticism:
1. will the absence of neutering your dog until it is full grown protect your dog from arthritis? (i.e. is there a way to "protect your dog from arthritis" under any circumstance?
2. what will neutering the dog during the middle and late stages of puppyhood do?
Any thoughts? ? ?
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater
(Inspired by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man).
(Inspired by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man).
-
archiekins2007
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:47 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Conclusion: If you want to protect your dog, you should not nurture it until its fully grown
Evidence: 1st Line
Assumption: If we do not nurture the dog in early age, it will be not develop a more serious condition when hes older.
Answer: D? because it is in line with the assumption.
Is D the OA?
Evidence: 1st Line
Assumption: If we do not nurture the dog in early age, it will be not develop a more serious condition when hes older.
Answer: D? because it is in line with the assumption.
Is D the OA?
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
arpita@gurome
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:42 members
A question can be made tough by:
1. making the stem tough to understand
2. making the stimulus tough
3. making the answer choices very close
4. a mix of the above
I think this question does a good job on points 1 and 2 hence would rate it as a between 'medium and tough' type of a question.
Let us look at the stem:
which one is a criticism to which the reasoning in the trainer's argument is most vulnerable - we have to identify a flaw in the reasoning.
Conclusion of the argument: if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown
Hence the logic is - the early puppyhood neutering > improper bone development > arthritis.
We have to find a choice which breaks this logic.
A - % is not important to the argument let alone exact percentage, hence discard.
B - It clearly says that improper bone development leads to arthritis, hence discard.
C - May be, it is possible that mid / late pupplyhood neutering does not lead to improper bone development hence prevents arthritis. Keep choice.
D - Benefits does not negate the fact that your dog will have arthritis. Hence discard.
E - Interesting say there are 20 dogs with arthritis and 12 developed it due to the reasons mentioned above, what if as the choice states 8 of the dogs were not neutered in early pupplyhood yet they developed the disease. That is no good for the argument, a dog could develop arthritis even when the advise in the conclusion is followed, this shows a flaw that was not covered by the argument. Keep choice.
Revisiting the contenders:
C - is vague on two counts. We are not worried about 'other effects' of mid / late pupplyhood neutering also the argument is about early puppyhood neutering, hence this choice is slightly off topic.
E - is spot on! It simply breaks the argument.
Hence pick E
1. making the stem tough to understand
2. making the stimulus tough
3. making the answer choices very close
4. a mix of the above
I think this question does a good job on points 1 and 2 hence would rate it as a between 'medium and tough' type of a question.
Let us look at the stem:
which one is a criticism to which the reasoning in the trainer's argument is most vulnerable - we have to identify a flaw in the reasoning.
Conclusion of the argument: if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown
Hence the logic is - the early puppyhood neutering > improper bone development > arthritis.
We have to find a choice which breaks this logic.
A - % is not important to the argument let alone exact percentage, hence discard.
B - It clearly says that improper bone development leads to arthritis, hence discard.
C - May be, it is possible that mid / late pupplyhood neutering does not lead to improper bone development hence prevents arthritis. Keep choice.
D - Benefits does not negate the fact that your dog will have arthritis. Hence discard.
E - Interesting say there are 20 dogs with arthritis and 12 developed it due to the reasons mentioned above, what if as the choice states 8 of the dogs were not neutered in early pupplyhood yet they developed the disease. That is no good for the argument, a dog could develop arthritis even when the advise in the conclusion is followed, this shows a flaw that was not covered by the argument. Keep choice.
Revisiting the contenders:
C - is vague on two counts. We are not worried about 'other effects' of mid / late pupplyhood neutering also the argument is about early puppyhood neutering, hence this choice is slightly off topic.
E - is spot on! It simply breaks the argument.
Hence pick E
Arpita Sen
Verbal and Admissions Expert
Gurome, Inc.
www.GuroMe.com
Win a free MBA essay review: https://bit.ly/toZumc
1-800-566-4043
+91 99201 32411 (India)
Verbal and Admissions Expert
Gurome, Inc.
www.GuroMe.com
Win a free MBA essay review: https://bit.ly/toZumc
1-800-566-4043
+91 99201 32411 (India)
-
pradeepkaushal9518
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1309
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
- Thanked: 33 times
- Followed by:5 members
-
g000fy
- MBA Student
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:05 pm
- Location: West Lafayette
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:700
Thanks. Clears why C can't be correct.arpita@gurome wrote:A question can be made tough by:
1. making the stem tough to understand
2. making the stimulus tough
3. making the answer choices very close
4. a mix of the above
I think this question does a good job on points 1 and 2 hence would rate it as a between 'medium and tough' type of a question.
Let us look at the stem:
which one is a criticism to which the reasoning in the trainer's argument is most vulnerable - we have to identify a flaw in the reasoning.
Conclusion of the argument: if you want to protect your dog from arthritis you should not neuter your dog until it is full-grown
Hence the logic is - the early puppyhood neutering > improper bone development > arthritis.
We have to find a choice which breaks this logic.
A - % is not important to the argument let alone exact percentage, hence discard.
B - It clearly says that improper bone development leads to arthritis, hence discard.
C - May be, it is possible that mid / late pupplyhood neutering does not lead to improper bone development hence prevents arthritis. Keep choice.
D - Benefits does not negate the fact that your dog will have arthritis. Hence discard.
E - Interesting say there are 20 dogs with arthritis and 12 developed it due to the reasons mentioned above, what if as the choice states 8 of the dogs were not neutered in early pupplyhood yet they developed the disease. That is no good for the argument, a dog could develop arthritis even when the advise in the conclusion is followed, this shows a flaw that was not covered by the argument. Keep choice.
Revisiting the contenders:
C - is vague on two counts. We are not worried about 'other effects' of mid / late pupplyhood neutering also the argument is about early puppyhood neutering, hence this choice is slightly off topic.
E - is spot on! It simply breaks the argument.
Hence pick E
