Q2 - Many of those who are most

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Necessary Assumption

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Many people opposed to animal cruelty actually contribute to animal cruelty.
Evidence: Many people opposed to animal cruelty might also own a domestic pet, which is usually fed meat.

Any prephrase?
The most glaring assumption here is that "if you're feeding meat to your domestic pet, you're contributing to animal cruelty". A secondary issue is that the author has not established that any people opposed to animal cruelty actually have dogs or cats as pets, and even if they do have dogs/cats, we don't know that these people feed meat to their pets. The people referred to in the first sentence could easily be contained entirely among atyipcal pet owners (either in terms of which pets they have or whether they feed meat to their pets).

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) So extreme. "requires" loving "all". The author hasn't committed herself to that crazy strong claim.

B) Very close. If this answer had said "many of those who are most opposed to animal cruelty also keep dogs and cats as pets", it would be a correct answer.

C) Nothing was assumed about where these animal lovers work.

D) Nothing needs to be assumed about other pets.

E) This matches our first prephrase. And it has the loveable quality of a correct answer Bridge idea: it connects wording from the evidence "feeding meat to pets" to wording form the conclusion "contributes to animal cruelty".

Takeaway/Pattern: When you're doing an Assumption family question and there's a NEW term/concept in the conclusion, it deserves our initial attention. "Contributing to animal cruelty?! HOW did the author think these people were being cruel to animals? By feeding them meat?!" If we negated this answer and said that feeding meat to pets has nothing to do with animal cruelty, then the author has no case.

#officialexplanation

[supermissykim]

What is the question stem asking? I've seen a ton of assumption questions but I've never come across one like this. I can't tell if it's sufficient or necessary.

...or is that not important for this question?


Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

This is a necessary assumption question.

The stimulus:

Many people that are opposed to cruelty to animals in the lab or slaughterhouse are people that love and keep pets.

Most domestic pets are dogs and cats, which are usually fed meat.

Therefore, those who are opposed to cruelty to animals contribute to such cruelty.

The gap in this reasoning is that we are are told that these people that keep pets feed them meat. The author then concludes that these people contribute to cruelty. The author is assuming that feeding meat contributes to cruelty.

Negation of B: Feeding meat to pets does not contribute to cruelty to animals.

This would ruin the author's conclusion of these pet keepers contributing to cruelty. The argument has no leg to stand on at this point.

Other answer choices:

A) Such a side issue here. Loving pets is not necessary. All forms of animals? Typical wrong answer for necessary assumption questions.

B) Opposed to keeping dogs and cats as pets? They do not matter in this argument.

C) They do not have to opposed to cruelty. Even if they were for it, would that ruin the idea that pet keepers are contributing to cruelty? No.

D) Not necessary at all. We do not know what are popular pets from this stimulus. We know that some pets are fed meat. It is not necessary for there being any pet not to eat meat.

[maryadkins]

Great work!

When you're just asked for the assumption, you can think of it as a necessary assumption, but in these cases the right answer is often going to be both necessary and sufficient. It's just going to fill the arrow.

[jamiejames]

This is a necessary assumption question.

The stimulus:

Many people that are opposed to cruelty to animals in the lab or slaughterhouse are people that love and keep pets.

Most domestic pets are dogs and cats, which are usually fed meat.

Therefore, those who are opposed to cruelty to animals contribute to such cruelty.

The gap in this reasoning is that we are are told that these people that keep pets feed them meat. The author then concludes that these people contribute to cruelty. The author is assuming that feeding meat contributes to cruelty.

Negation of B: Feeding meat to pets does not contribute to cruelty to animals.

This would ruin the author's conclusion of these pet keepers contributing to cruelty. The argument has no leg to stand on at this point.

Other answer choices:

A) Such a side issue here. Loving pets is not necessary. All forms of animals? Typical wrong answer for necessary assumption questions.

B) Opposed to keeping dogs and cats as pets? They do not matter in this argument.

C) They do not have to opposed to cruelty. Even if they were for it, would that ruin the idea that pet keepers are contributing to cruelty? No.

D) Not necessary at all. We do not know what are popular pets from this stimulus. We know that some pets are fed meat. It is not necessary for there being any pet not to eat meat.

(Hey, I think you meant negation of E)