Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on t

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
Followed by:1 members
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety. Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since there were never any hunting-related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?

(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years.
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds.
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

OA: A

What's wrong with options B and D?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:45 am
Option A - CORRECT.
This option has provided the strongest additional support for the argument. There are safety rules and regulations guiding hunting in order to secure a safe place for both humans and animal lives. However, most surrounding counties where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years because the residents have a safe hunting Technics.

Option B - INCORRECT.
The reasoning in this option is not well defined. Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. The confusing part here is, who is causing the accident? The hunters of the deer or the deer itself?, Did the accident occur when an hunter is trying to hunt down the deer or Did the deer attack the Motor vehicle?.

Option C - INCORRECT.
This option is also in support of the reasoning in this argument. when the increase in deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds and this may be harmful to human health if they get in contact with them.

Option D - INCORRECT.
This option is flawed because, If deer are being nurtured In residential areas in the county, then there will be familiarity between the humans and the deer and there won't be any reason to hunt them down for safety purposes.

Option E - INCORRECT.
This option is stating the damages keeping deer in residential areas can cause. Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.