Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County

[pnk]

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.

[selango]

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.

[outreach]

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

[paes]

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.

[selango]

paes

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

[paes]

Thanks Selango...

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

[pnk]

Thanks paes; thanks selango

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

[paes]

hai pnk,

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

[diebeatsthegmat]

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 ?

[bakhshaliyev]

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...