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.
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Eight years ago hunting
-
madhur_ahuja
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 17 times
-
Sharma_Gaurav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
i pick C = answer.
Main conclusion was - ban from last 8 years endangers public safety.
only choice C provides support in this regard.
Choice A just provide suport to additional ino that the ban has cause deer population to increase.
Main conclusion was - ban from last 8 years endangers public safety.
only choice C provides support in this regard.
Choice A just provide suport to additional ino that the ban has cause deer population to increase.
IMO A:
A strengthens the argument by stating that the hunting is atleast one of the factors to keep the deer population in check. If the deer population increases, deer invade the residential areas, damage the property and cause motor vehicle accidents result in serious injury to motorists.
C tells us that the deer populations increase beyond optimal results in disease and malnutrition among the deer herds. However it doesn't tell whether this cause any danger to public safety.
Hope this helps
A strengthens the argument by stating that the hunting is atleast one of the factors to keep the deer population in check. If the deer population increases, deer invade the residential areas, damage the property and cause motor vehicle accidents result in serious injury to motorists.
C tells us that the deer populations increase beyond optimal results in disease and malnutrition among the deer herds. However it doesn't tell whether this cause any danger to public safety.
Hope this helps
-
raghavsarathy
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:41 pm
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:770
IMHO - A
C in facts weakens the argument.. If disease is prevailent among deers when population increases then the ban on hunting would have no effect. Even without the ban , the deer population must be reducing because of the diseases and there would be no problems for the public..
OA pls ?
C in facts weakens the argument.. If disease is prevailent among deers when population increases then the ban on hunting would have no effect. Even without the ban , the deer population must be reducing because of the diseases and there would be no problems for the public..
OA pls ?
-
madhur_ahuja
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 17 times
-
Sharma_Gaurav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
sivaelectric
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:32 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 34 times
- Followed by:28 members
For a moment I thought the answer was C, thanks for the explanation. I agree with A
If I am wrong correct me 
, If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button 
.
Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
, If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button .Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
-
krishnakumar.ks
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:22 am
- Thanked: 4 times
@ikaplan: B only says what is already stated in the argument and hence cannot be an additional support provider.
Deer are invading residential areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists
-
Sharma_Gaurav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
just a second thought on this argument.
we need to provide "additional evidence" to support the argument. so B is wrong as it is repeating things already present in argument clearly.
Now to provide additional support lets find out and highight the assumption in the argument.
Argument says since the ban is implemented ( hunting not allowed ) the dear population is increased and hence the danger to public safety has increased. So Ban is not needed.
When we conclude Ban is not needed , that means hunting should be permitted. And then going by the same reverse logic in argument, we are assuming that when hunting is permitted -> then dear population will not increase and will be under control _> hence will pose less danger to public safety.
Hence option A highlight this assumption and hence eliminate this possibility and strengthen the conclusion.
we need to provide "additional evidence" to support the argument. so B is wrong as it is repeating things already present in argument clearly.
Now to provide additional support lets find out and highight the assumption in the argument.
Argument says since the ban is implemented ( hunting not allowed ) the dear population is increased and hence the danger to public safety has increased. So Ban is not needed.
When we conclude Ban is not needed , that means hunting should be permitted. And then going by the same reverse logic in argument, we are assuming that when hunting is permitted -> then dear population will not increase and will be under control _> hence will pose less danger to public safety.
Hence option A highlight this assumption and hence eliminate this possibility and strengthen the conclusion.
-
karthikpandian19
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
- Thanked: 165 times
- Followed by:70 members
Refer the explanation for each options below:
madhur_ahuja wrote: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?
Conclusion: Hunting ban is unnecessary and has created danger to public safety (which if the ban was not in place, would not have existed)
(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. - Strongly supports conclusion, by showing the reference from surrounding counties
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. - Irrelevant as it talks about the accidents only
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. - This kind of weakens the statement as it reduces the deer population
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. - Clearly irrelevant
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings - Extra information which is irrelevant.
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON
---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" ---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON
---If you find my post useful, click "Thank"
------Never stop until cracking GMAT---
The conclusion of the given argument is that the ban on deer hunting has caused the deer population to increase which has in turn resulted in danger to public safety.
A : This look good. Lets keep this under consideration. This provides best support
B : This mentions about the accident to the motorists but it is not related to the argument's conclusion directly.
C : This in fact weakens the argument's conclusion by saying that the deer population is affected due to increase in the population.
D : This is irrelevant. Out of Scope.
E : This is irrelevant. Out of Scope.
So A looks best. Delving further into A, in surrounding counties when hunting is permitted the population of the deer has not increased. This would mean that in Greenfield, the deer population grew because of ban on hunting endangering public safety.
A : This look good. Lets keep this under consideration. This provides best support
B : This mentions about the accident to the motorists but it is not related to the argument's conclusion directly.
C : This in fact weakens the argument's conclusion by saying that the deer population is affected due to increase in the population.
D : This is irrelevant. Out of Scope.
E : This is irrelevant. Out of Scope.
So A looks best. Delving further into A, in surrounding counties when hunting is permitted the population of the deer has not increased. This would mean that in Greenfield, the deer population grew because of ban on hunting endangering public safety.
My attempt to capture my B-School Journey in a Blog : tranquilnomadgmat.blocked
There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.
There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.
