-
sachindia
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
- Location: Bengaluru, India
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:640
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.
A talks about Surrounding counties.. why assume that conditions would be same in both counties??
When X causes y, we can strengthen it by saying x actually caused y which is what B does.. it says often results in accidents.. so B must be right?
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.
A talks about Surrounding counties.. why assume that conditions would be same in both counties??
When X causes y, we can strengthen it by saying x actually caused y which is what B does.. it says often results in accidents.. so B must be right?
Regards,
Sach
Sach
