Official Explanation

The argument made by the Mayor of Ford City is causal in nature: the crackdown on puppy farms caused the lower number of stray dogs picked up by dog catchers. In order to weaken a causal argument you must show that the causation is flawed – in this case that it is not only the crackdown on puppy farms that caused the decline in dogs caught by the dog catchers. Only Choice (E) does not help to sever this causal chain. Even if there had been tough laws on the books with regards to puppy farms, it does not follow that the crackdown was not responsible for fewer dogs caught by the dog catchers. It could be that the laws were never enforced before and that the crackdown was responsible.

All of the other answer choices properly weaken the argument. Choice (A) does not say exactly what else was responsible for the decline, but it does indicate that the crackdown was not a factor – if Agange City saw the same decline in stray dogs caught, but did not crack down on puppy farms then there must be some other factor that is affecting the number of stray dogs caught.

Choice (B) indicates that the decline may simply be due to the fact that there are fewer dog catchers out trying to catch dogs (and have nothing to do with fewer strays on the streets).

Choice (C) would indicate that bad weather was keeping the stray population low and choice (D) would indicate that it was the new organization's responsibility. Each of these gives us reason to believe that the decline in the number of stray dogs caught was not solely due to the crackdown on puppy farms.

Answer: E