Funding opponent: Some people favor city funding for the spaying and neutering of pets at the owners’ request.
Conclusion (So)
There will not be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals in the city if this funding for spaying and neutering is provided.
Evidence
80% of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals.
Evaluate
In order to understand different ways to Strengthen this argument, we should think about how we would object to it / what are its vulnerabilities?
Given that … 80% of pet owners already pay to spay or neuter their animals,
How could someone argue that … if the city provides funding for spaying and neutering, there will be a significant decrease in the number of stray animals?
It seems like we would just say,
Goal
Get rid of four answers that strengthen.
Strengtheners will probably reassure us that the pets that haven’t yet been spayed / neutered don’t contribute meaningfully to the number of strays in the city, or they will make us think that the 20% of owners who don’t already pay for these procedures still wouldn’t be willing to get their pets spayed or neutered, even if the city were offering to pay for it.