Dear friends,

here is a Explain Discrepancy plus Except question from MANHATTAN

Hunting Season In an effort to reduce the number of deer, and therefore decrease the number of automobile accidents caused by deer, the government lengthened the deer hunting season earlier this year. Surprisingly, the number of accidents caused by deer has increased substantially since the introduction of the longer hunting season.

All of the following, if true, help to explain the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer EXCEPT:

(A) The presence of humans in the woods causes the deer to move to new areas, which causes the deer to cross roads more frequently than normal.
(B) In the area where the deer live, traffic has increased substantially precisely because of the lengthened hunting season.
(C) Most automobile accidents involving deer result from cars swerving to avoid deer, and leave the deer in question unharmed.
(D) Deer tend to bolt when hearing gunshots or other loud sounds and are more likely to run across a road without warning.
(E) A new highway was recently built directly through the state's largest forest, which is the primary habitat of the state's deer population.

I have doubt on (B) and (C), i choose (B) while answer is (C)
I excerpted the explanation from MANHATTAN
(B) In the area where the deer live, traffic has increased substantially precisely because of the lengthened hunting season.
Oh, this makes sense. The lengthened hunting season actually caused more traffic, so there are more chances for accidents between cars and deer where the deer live. This explains the discrepancy, too.

My doubt: (B) is paraphrase one of the discrepancy that "the number of accidents caused by deer has substantially since the introduction of th longer humtomg season."
another discrepancy in the dtimulus is lengthen the deer hunting season to reduce the number of deer , therefore to reduce the number of automobile accidents caused by deer.
when I add the correct answer into the argument, i don't think that makes sense, becuse i think it is the same meaning of one of the discrepancy, that's why i choose (B).
For example :
According to researchers, low dosages of aspirin taken daily can significantly reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke. Yet doctors have stopped recommending daily aspirin for most patients
if here is a answer choise that :
Doctors stopped suggesting daily aspirin for most parients.
I don't think this is a correct answer cuz it does paraphrase the discrepancy, moreover, i don't think it makes the argument more sense if i add it to the arguemnt.


(C)Most automobile accidents involving deer result from cars swerving to avoid deer, and leave the deer in question unharmed.
This one is tricky! It sounded like it explained the discrepancy when I first read it, but then I realized something: it's just explaining how the accidents tend to happen, but it doesn't address why there are more accidents now than there used to be.
My doubt: the word "result from" indicate a cause of the accident, so "cars swerving to avoid deer " is a cause,
"and leave the deer in question unharmed." is a eventual purpose of the action of cars swerving, unfortunately, leading the increase of accidents., I added it to argument, i think it does make the argument sense, so i eliminated (C).


Please point out what's the problem.

thanks a lot.

have a nice day.
>_~