Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Scientist: In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty. The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog. This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

The scientist's argument would be most strengthened if it were true that, in the experiment, the dogs with access to the handle tended to release more food when

the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
In an experiment, dogs had access to a handle they could pull to release food into a nearby enclosure that contained a familiar dog and nothing else, contained an unfamiliar dog and nothing else, or was empty.	What it says: Dogs could choose to send food to three different scenarios - familiar dog, unfamiliar dog, or empty space What it does: Sets up the experimental design and explains the choice mechanism What it is: Study design description Visualization: Dog A with handle → can send food to: [Enclosure 1: Familiar Dog B] OR [Enclosure 2: Unfamiliar Dog C] OR [Enclosure 3: Empty]
The dogs typically released more food to the familiar dog than to the unfamiliar dog.	What it says: Dogs consistently chose to give more food to dogs they knew versus strangers What it does: Presents the key experimental finding that builds on the setup What it is: Study result Visualization: Food released: Familiar dog = 15 portions, Unfamiliar dog = 8 portions, Empty = 5 portions
This suggests that dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.	What it says: The scientist concludes that dogs prefer helping familiar dogs due to higher motivation levels What it does: Interprets the experimental results to make a claim about dog motivation What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The scientist starts with experimental setup, presents the key finding about food distribution patterns, and then draws a conclusion about dog motivation based on this behavior pattern.

Main Conclusion:

Dogs are more motivated to help other dogs they know than to help unfamiliar dogs.

Logical Structure:

The scientist uses experimental evidence (dogs gave more food to familiar dogs) to support a claim about underlying motivation (dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs). The link assumes that giving more food directly reflects higher motivation to help.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would make the scientist's conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that dogs are more motivated to help familiar dogs than unfamiliar ones.

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about motivation/preference - dogs being 'more motivated' to help familiar dogs. The evidence is behavioral - releasing 'more food' to familiar vs unfamiliar dogs. We need to bridge the gap between observed behavior and claimed motivation.

Strategy

To strengthen this argument, we need information that rules out alternative explanations for why dogs gave more food to familiar dogs, or provides additional evidence that this behavior specifically reflects helping motivation rather than other factors like excitement, recognition patterns, or non-helping behaviors.

Answer Choices Explained

the behavior was being encouraged by a familiar person than when it was being encouraged by an unfamiliar person

This focuses on whether familiar vs unfamiliar people encourage the behavior, but we need to strengthen the claim about dogs' motivation toward other dogs, not their response to human encouragement. The scientist's conclusion is specifically about dog-to-dog helping behavior, so human influence is irrelevant to testing this theory.

the enclosure was empty than when it contained an unfamiliar dog

If dogs released more food to empty enclosures than to unfamiliar dogs, this would actually weaken the helping motivation theory. It would suggest dogs prefer not helping anyone over helping unfamiliar dogs, which contradicts the idea that they have some motivation to help other dogs in general.

an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure was displaying hostility toward them than when an unfamiliar dog in the enclosure appeared friendly

While this shows dogs can distinguish between hostile and friendly unfamiliar dogs, it doesn't strengthen the core claim about familiar vs unfamiliar preference. It's about behavioral responses to different unfamiliar dogs rather than comparing motivation levels between familiar and unfamiliar dogs.

a dog in the enclosure appeared uninterested in food already released into the enclosure than when it appeared interested in that food

This addresses whether the receiving dog appears interested in food, but this factor would apply equally to both familiar and unfamiliar dogs. It doesn't help distinguish why dogs would be more motivated to help familiar dogs specifically, so it doesn't strengthen the scientist's conclusion.

a familiar dog was in the enclosure than when a familiar dog was visible but the enclosure was empty

This directly strengthens the argument by showing that dogs release more food when a familiar dog can actually receive and benefit from it versus when a familiar dog is visible but cannot receive the food. This supports the helping motivation theory because it demonstrates that dogs are motivated by whether their action will actually help the familiar dog, not just by familiarity or excitement from seeing known dogs. This rules out alternative explanations and confirms the helping motivation.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...