Critical Reasoning

This was posted earlier also , posting again for fresh discussions . Certain thin line diffrences need to be discussed , wanna see what points arise , are they the same as issue i faced while solving .

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.

IMO A

hunting was banned because hunting endangered pub safety.
deer pop has increased and they are troubling residents and causing accidents.
they never had hunting related injuries
hence ban was unnecessary and dangerous for public

strengthen the conclusion.

B - already stated in arg besides it doesnt talk about hunting related dangers.
C- weakens the conclusion.
D- weakens
E- doesn't still create any public danger.

now lets come to A - actually even A is not a great choice. if you analyse A - its just saying that hunting will keep the deer population in check and hence save them from deer menace. However initially we did ban hunting because it was jeopardizing public safely. A doesnt state that allowing hunting in other county has not causing any danger to public safety there.
but then A is the only choice left. and if we dont assume anything else then its the best here.

I could be wrong, but I disagree with the previous poster. The question asks what answer choice would support the conclusion. The conclusion is that the ban is unnecessary and has created a danger to public safety.

Choice B is the only choice that addresses the issue of public safety. If I were taking a test with this question, I would choose B.

hi SarahLiz

i got stuck at the same point too. but then read the question again...

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above?

hence ruled out B because that is already mentioned in the argument

superb force... even I went for B. The last line of stem says "that would not otherwise exists" .. I guess A strenghtens this 'otherwise'

This was the point i actually wanted to discuss . Fight between A and B . On the test day i would have selected B . .

OA A

Wow! I know I'm wrong but I still disagree with that answer.

AIM GMAT wrote:This was the point i actually wanted to discuss . Fight between A and B . On the test day i would have selected B . .

OA A

force brings up a great point:

in strengthen and assumption questions, choices that restate evidence are ALWAYS wrong.

Hi Force5,

I feel the answer to be B because in A if you notice its said that " In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. "...........how can we compare our county with surrounding counties..........there can be n number of reasons for surrounding counties dear population to remain low for example climate, habitat etc...........please clear my this doubt................

Testluv wrote:

AIM GMAT wrote:This was the point i actually wanted to discuss . Fight between A and B . On the test day i would have selected B . .

OA A

force brings up a great point:

in strengthen and assumption questions, choices that restate evidence are ALWAYS wrong.

Thanks for the tip! I'll remember that!

aspirant2011 wrote:Hi Force5,

I feel the answer to be B because in A if you notice its said that " In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. "...........how can we compare our county with surrounding counties..........there can be n number of reasons for surrounding counties dear population to remain low for example climate, habitat etc...........please clear my this doubt................

Ah, but it is still support for the argument. (A) reads:

(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years.

which, when denied would be:

(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population HAS increased in the last eight years.

which would clearly weaken the argument.

Because DENYING (A) weakens (i.e., removes support), (A) itself must strengthen (or supply support) to the argument.

Takeaway: if you're not sure whether an answer choice strengthens an argument, try denying it. If the denial clearly weakens the argument, then you've got the right answer.

thanks a lot testluv, i would keep that in mind.........