mehaksal wrote:18. In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed injecting female deer during breeding season with 10 milligrams of a hormone that would suppress fertility. Critics have charged that the proposal poses health risks to people who might eat the meat of treated deer and thereby ingest unsafe quantities of the hormone. The biologist has responded to these critics by pointing out that humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without any adverse effects, and since no one would eat even one entire deer a day, the treatment would be safe.
The biologist's response to critics of the proposal is based on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) People would be notified of the time when deer in their area were to be treated with the hormone. This is irrelevant to the argument
(B) The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. If this were true, then perhaps some people would ingest more than 10 milligrams of the hormone. However, there is a better answer.
(C) Hunting season for deer could be scheduled so that it would not coincide with breeding season. This is irrelevant to the argument
(D) The hormone in question does not occur naturally in the female deer that would be injected. This is the best answer. If this were true, then giving the deer 10 milligrams of the hormone would lead to the dear having 10 + original amount of the hormone, which would obviously be more then 10 milligrams (the unsafe level)
(E) Most people do not consider deer meat to be part of their daily diet and eat it only on rare occasions This is irrelevant to the argument.

mehaksal wrote:thanks a ton

alex.gellatly wrote:

mehaksal wrote:18. In order to control the deer population, a biologist has proposed injecting female deer during breeding season with 10 milligrams of a hormone that would suppress fertility. Critics have charged that the proposal poses health risks to people who might eat the meat of treated deer and thereby ingest unsafe quantities of the hormone. The biologist has responded to these critics by pointing out that humans can ingest up to 10 milligrams of the hormone a day without any adverse effects, and since no one would eat even one entire deer a day, the treatment would be safe.
The biologist's response to critics of the proposal is based on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) People would be notified of the time when deer in their area were to be treated with the hormone. This is irrelevant to the argument
(B) The hormone that would be injected into the deer is chemically similar to hormones used in human contraceptives. If this were true, then perhaps some people would ingest more than 10 milligrams of the hormone. However, there is a better answer.
(C) Hunting season for deer could be scheduled so that it would not coincide with breeding season. This is irrelevant to the argument
(D) The hormone in question does not occur naturally in the female deer that would be injected. This is the best answer. If this were true, then giving the deer 10 milligrams of the hormone would lead to the dear having 10 + original amount of the hormone, which would obviously be more then 10 milligrams (the unsafe level)
(E) Most people do not consider deer meat to be part of their daily diet and eat it only on rare occasions This is irrelevant to the argument.

The correct answer should be D for the reasons stated above. Does this help?