BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

American dog owners

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

American dog owners

by gmat009 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:43 am
A study showed that only 10% of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than 20% 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 outside such classes

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

Plz. explain
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:24 am
imo:C

p1:A study showed that only 10% of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes.

p2:More than 20% of these dog owners, the study also showed, participate in dog shows.

conlusion: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.


Thus if total dog owners = 100
10% american dog owners enrol in classes = 10
20% in dog show = 20

this conclusion is possible only when..

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


whats the OA??
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 73 times
Followed by:2 members

by mals24 » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:57 am
IMO B

However I don't know how to explain my reasoning.

Conclusion: people who train their dogs are more likely to participate in dog shows than people who don't train dogs.

On what basis did we come to this conclusion?
We used a example of a study that speaks specifically only about people who send their dogs to formal obedience training classes.
And we used this specific study to come to a general conclusion.

So the only way we can generalize the conclusion is if the proportion of people who send their dogs for the formal training is representative of people who send their dogs for training outside. Because if they were not representative then the statistical data used to support the conclusion would be invalid.

@raunekk

You've made a small mistake in your calculation
its 20% of 10 = 2 and not 20% of 100

As per C does it mean that all the dogs that participate attend the FOTC?
If this is the case then no untrained dog can participate which sort of goes against the conclusion. Because it can be inferred from the conclusion that there are atleast some untrained dogs that participate.

The other options A, D,E are irrelevant to the discussion.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:39 am
@mals24
You've made a small mistake in your calculation
its 20% of 10 = 2 and not 20% of 100

As per C does it mean that all the dogs that participate attend the FOTC?
If this is the case then no untrained dog can participate which sort of goes against the conclusion. Because it can be inferred from the conclusion that there are atleast some untrained dogs that participate.

The other options A, D,E are irrelevant to the discussion.
i am sorry to differ,,,

but i dont think i have made a mistake,,,

P1:A study showed that only 10% of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes

i.e 10% of 100 = 10

p2:More than 20% of these dog owners, the study also showed, participate in dog shows

Now, i feel "these" refers to the whole set of american dog owners(100) and not 10% ..
i.e 20% of 100= 20

And the conclusion,
conlusion: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 is possible only when

set <p1> and set<p2> overlap...

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

i.e
proportion of dog owners who enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes=10

is representative of the proportion who train their dogs outside such classes

it somehow doesnt makes any sense to me..

OA??
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:18 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by Jatinder » Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:50 am
IMO A

we need to show that 90% of other owners can not attend the show and that's waht A says
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:25 am
Location: New York, US

Option C

by slash » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:23 pm
I will go with the option C. This option seems to be the right one.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:16 am
Thanked: 6 times
GMAT Score:710

Re: American dog owners

by muzali » Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:18 am
gmat009 wrote:A study showed that only 10% of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than 20% 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 outside such classes

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

Plz. explain
Choices A, C, D and E are extreme choices.
The key to this question is realizing that trained dogs in general participate in dog shows. The dogs can be trained within or outside training classes- this is what B is suggesting.
Choice B is correct.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2134
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pm
Thanked: 237 times
Followed by:25 members
GMAT Score:730

Re: American dog owners

by logitech » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:06 am
gmat009 wrote:A study showed that only 10% of American dog owners enroll their dogs in formal obedience training classes. More than 20% 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?

There is meaning shift here:

Obedience training classes participants ARE named as people who trained their dogs.

So one way to weaken this conclusion would be to find an alternative explanation than TRAINING to participate in dog shows.

But since we are looking for a SUPPORT, lets hunt for an answer choice that says trained dogs are participating in shows.

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

If it is impossible, there would not be any other people in shows.

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

10% = proportion who train their dogs outside such classes - it actually WEAKENS the conclusion.

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

If you want your dog in that show, you should better get him in the classes! - It supports the conclusion and IMO it is the correct answer here



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

Attention paid ? It is cute but not inside our scope


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

PUREBRED ? - out of scope
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 3:07 am
A is the most suitable option in this case
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1