Q15 - Funding opponent: Some people

[fch4mat]

I thought a few of the answers didn't really strengthen the conclusion, therefore, I couldn't decide which one was the strength except. Explanation on this question?

[bbirdwell]

Let's get a solid understanding of the argument core first.

Conclusion:
There will NOT be a significant decrease in # of strays if the city funds spaying/neutering.

Premise:
80% of pet owners already pay to spay/neuter.

Before you go to the choices, take a good look at this argument and evaluate its logic, anticipate any assumptions you see. No need to articulate it in LSAT terms, but at least look at things from a critical perspective. Here, it's clear that the key piece of evidence relies on "80% of pet owners."

We want to eliminate 4 choices that strengthen and choose the 1 that does not.

(A) strengthens! The funding only applies to pet owners. If "very few" strays come from pets, then paying pet owners to spay/neuter probably won't have a "significant" effect on the # of strays.

(B) doesn't seem to affect the argument at all, really. "Sooner'? Hmm. None of this is about timing. If anything, this might weaken the argument if we imagine that by getting their pets fixed sooner, there could be a smaller chance that those pets will produce strays. However, this requires lots of additional assumptions. Overall, the choice seems neutral. Let's leave it for now.

(C) strengthens! If the ONLY way to decrease # of strays is to fix existing strays, then fixing pets will have no effect at all on that #.

(D) strengthens! The 20% who don't fix their pets object morally. City funding isn't going to motivate them to get their pets fixed, then, because money isn't the issue.

(E) strengthens! The majority of the 20% of un-fixed pets are unlikely to produce strays. Thus, city funding is not going to increase the # of fixed pets, and therefore that funding will not affect the # of strays.

Do you see it now?

[Mab6q]

I understand why the correct answer is B, but could I ask a general question about C.

I read C as saying: stray animals decrease --> existing strays are spayed or neutered

However, does the logic work the other way to because of the "if" in the last part of the answer?

existing strays are spayed or neutered --> I read C as saying: stray animals decrease

Could someone clarify please?

[ohthatpatrick]

Good question.

No, it's not a bi-conditional. It would look like how you originally symbolized it.

"only" and "only if" indicate necessary conditions (you can literally draw an arrow through them and thereby see that whatever idea comes right after 'only' or 'only if' will be the idea to the right of the arrow).

But 'the only' is the only exception. (see what I did there?)

'The only' is a sufficient trigger.

The difference between saying "only" and "only if" is arbitrary and makes no real difference.

Only men can play in the NFL
is the same as
Only if you're male can you play in the NFL

Similarly,
Getting a 180 is the only way to get a full ride to Harvard
is the same as
The only way to get a full ride to Harvard is to get a 180
and the same as
The only way to get a full ride to Harvard is if you get a 180

So (C) would look, as you said, like
# of strays decreased --> existing strays spayed/neutered

And for the sake of helping THIS author, the contrapositive:
~Spaying/neutring existing strays -> ~Decreasing # of strays

Hope this helps.