Hunting was banned for Public safety.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.
Result
1. Deer population growth 6 times.
2. Deer invading residential areas and damaging property and causing motor accidents.
Conclusion - Ban on hunting has created a danger to public safety.
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.
Can be possible , suggesting that the decision to ban hunting was not good. - Keep it aside...
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
Already stated in the passage , it's just a repetition of the same fact in different words.
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds.
Might be , but we are not interested in the disease and malnutrition of deer...
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
Irrelevant.
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.
Just a casual remark...
Between ( A) and ( B) I choose (A) since it presents additional information that can strengthen the conclusion......
