Self-study
Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners' request. ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ █ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ █████████
Argument Breakdown
The stimulus is about sterilizing pets: specifically, should the city pay for pets to be sterilized, or should pet owners have to pay? Some people think that the city should pay, because then the city would actually save money that they spend dealing with stray animals. The assumption here is that if the city pays for pets to be sterilized, there will be fewer strays. So that's our context for the argument.
The argument we're concerned with is made by the "funding opponent," who concludes that this funding will not significantly reduce the number of stray animals. In support, the funding opponent explains that a significant majority of pet owners in the city already pay for their pets to be sterilized. So according to the funding opponent, the city funding this initiative would only make a small difference in pet sterilization, meaning a minimal impact on the number of strays.
Objective: Do NOT Strengthen
This is a strengthen except question, which means we're looking for the single answer choice that does not strengthen the funding opponent's position. The correct answer could weaken or could do nothing at all, which means the easiest way to find it is to identify the answer choices that do strengthen and eliminate them.
The funding opponent's argument relies on the single premise that many pet owners already sterilize their animals, so we can strengthen by finding other reasons that city funding for pet sterilization won't reduce stray numbers. This could mean further supporting the idea that funding won't lead to additional pet sterilization, or showing that additional pet sterilization won't affect stray numbers. And remember, any answer that strengthens gets eliminated!
14.
Each of the following, if █████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████
a
Very few of ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████
This supports the argument by detaching pet sterilization from strays. If strays mostly don't come from pets, then sterilizing more pets can't be expected to significantly reduce strays.
b
Many pet owners █████ ████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████
This somewhat weakens the argument, meaning it's our correct answer which doesn't strengthen. The longer a pet goes without being sterilized, the more chance it has to reproduce, meaning more potential strays. Earlier sterilization means less chance of strays.
c
The only way ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████
Like (A), this detaches pet sterilization from strays, but even more strongly. If sterilizing existing strays is the only way to decrease stray numbers, then funding the sterilization of pets won't make any difference at all. (C) is a strong strengthener.
d
Most pet owners ███ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████
(D) strengthens by further reducing the impact of city funding on pet sterilization. If people fail to sterilize their pets for moral, rather than financial reasons, then city funding won't increase pet sterilization—which of course strengthens.
e
The majority of ████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████
(E) combines both strengthening approaches we've seen: it reduces the impact of funding on pet sterilization while also detaching pet sterilization from strays. Not only will city funding not convince people to sterilize their pets they keep for breeding, but those un-sterilized pets don't produce strays anyway.