BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County

Expert replies
by pnk » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:33 pm
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.

[spoiler]Took ~3mins to decide btn A & B; OA - A; How can the situation in surrounding countries matches with Greenfield. It may be possible tht deer in surrounding countries died on their own. We can't make A answer without making additional assumption. Whereas B - reinforces the view that ban has indeed created danger to public safety.[/spoiler] Pls correct.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by selango » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:48 pm
The question asks you to provide additional support to the conclusion.

Ban on hunting must be removed so that deer population will be reduced.
This enforces danger to public safety will not exists.

Option B does not provide additional support as injury to motorist is already mentioned in stimulus itself.

damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists

But option A provides additional support that the deer popluation has not increased where hunting is permitted.
From this we can assume hunting reduces deer population and ban mus be removed in greenfield county.
Join the discussion

by outreach » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:34 pm
The underlying assumption of the author here is that the increase in deer population because of ban on hunting has created problem for residents.
a. hunting has helped to control the population hence it helps the conclusion
b. already stated in arguemnt. no additional info
c. this shows the problem in deer heard. no additional info on humans safety
d. shows another reason why deer population is increasin or why they r coming to human resdiential areas
e. no additional info on humans safety
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/
Join the discussion

by paes » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:04 am
I don't agree with A

The conclusion is :

...but also has created a danger to public safety .

and A doesn't support this thing.

B is also not a answer because it is already stated in the argument.
Join the discussion

by selango » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:37 am
paes

A does provides additional support that hunting can reduce deer population which in turn reduces the damage
Join the discussion

by paes » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:57 am
Thanks Selango...

got it.
Basically A is not directly strengthening to conclusion but it is strengthening the assumption/premise.
Join the discussion

by pnk » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:57 pm
Thanks paes; thanks selango

Question asks for 'additional support' not 'support'- missed it earlier.
Join the discussion

by paes » Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:21 am
hai pnk,

whether it is additional support or support, it doesn't matter, both are same.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:08 am
pnk 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?

(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.

[spoiler]Took ~3mins to decide btn A & B; OA - A; How can the situation in surrounding countries matches with Greenfield. It may be possible tht deer in surrounding countries died on their own. We can't make A answer without making additional assumption. Whereas B - reinforces the view that ban has indeed created danger to public safety.[/spoiler] Pls correct.
why is not C ?
Join the discussion

by bakhshaliyev » Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:55 am
Why A? In A it is stated that the size of the deer population has not increased... "has not increased" does not mean that the number was stable.. it can be assumed that Hunting causes the decrease in the deer population...
Join the discussion