|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on [#permalink]
 23 Sep 2003, 09:27
Question Stats:
33% (01:56) correct
66% (01:09) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
Please Explain your choice
Last edited by Praetorian on 26 Sep 2003, 14:06, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 82
Location: california
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
i would say A....b/c A is the missing premise that solidifies the conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
E
Author argues that ban on the hunting caused the Deer population to grow and hence the public menace. Choice E provides additional problems of banning the hunting .
_________________
Brainless
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 82
Location: california
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
brainless,
i think you had the correct idea when you said >>
Author argues that ban on the hunting caused the Deer population to grow and hence the public menace.
so in order to strengthen the conclusion you need to show that the ban on hunting was what caused the Deer over-population and A shows this b/c it compares an area where there was "no ban" to an area where there was a ban....and by showing that the "no ban" area did not see an increase in deer population shows that the ban was the reason for the over-population-->the point that the author is trying to prove and that WE are trying to solidify....
only A shows this
i also think that E is out of scope
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3550
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
626
[0], given: 781
|
guy123 wrote: brainless,
i think you had the correct idea when you said >>
Author argues that ban on the hunting caused the Deer population to grow and hence the public menace.
so in order to strengthen the conclusion you need to show that the ban on hunting was what caused the Deer over-population and A shows this b/c it compares an area where there was "no ban" to an area where there was a ban....and by showing that the "no ban" area did not see an increase in deer population shows that the ban was the reason for the over-population-->the point that the author is trying to prove and that WE are trying to solidify....
only A shows this
i also think that E is out of scope
very nice explanation
A is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 773
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink]
26 Sep 2003, 01:59
praetorian123 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.
Please Explain your choice
In my opinion, A is NOT the answer.
(A) states that deer have not increased. Of course not -- people are shooting them. However, we are trying to strengthen the conclusion that the harm in enacting the ban exceeds that in allowing hunting. We have no ideas whether hunting-oriented accidents had increased for this town, hence no way to judge whether or not this strengthens or weakens the conclusion. Hence, this is irrelevant.
(B) states that deer create a road hazard. Since the population of deer has increased six-fold, it is reasonable to assume that the hazard has also increased. Since this describes yet another increased danger to public safety, it certainly supports the conclusion and is my choice for the answer.
(C) may be true but does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety.
(D) nice people. Gold star for them. Irrelavent.
(E) may also be true and though it points out how the ban may incrase the danger to the poor defenseless shrubs, it does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety.
_________________
Best,
AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 100
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink]
26 Sep 2003, 07:35
AkamaiBrah wrote: praetorian123 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.
Please Explain your choice In my opinion, A is NOT the answer. (A) states that deer have not increased. Of course not -- people are shooting them. However, we are trying to strengthen the conclusion that the harm in enacting the ban exceeds that in allowing hunting. We have no ideas whether hunting-oriented accidents had increased for this town, hence no way to judge whether or not this strengthens or weakens the conclusion. Hence, this is irrelevant. (B) states that deer create a road hazard. Since the population of deer has increased six-fold, it is reasonable to assume that the hazard has also increased. Since this describes yet another increased danger to public safety, it certainly supports the conclusion and is my choice for the answer. (C) may be true but does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety. (D) nice people. Gold star for them. Irrelavent. (E) may also be true and though it points out how the ban may incrase the danger to the poor defenseless shrubs, it does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety. B is already stated in the stimulus :
" Damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists"
Hence it does NOT add any thing to augment the argument.
As it is mentioned in the stimulus ( " Deer are invading residential areas" ), by invading residential areas deer cause harm to the trees and shrubs, so I still feel E is best answer.
_________________
Brainless
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 262
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
The conclusion of argument is:
clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist.
Argument gives enough examples to show that ban & thus increased deer population is causing damage. To really support the argument we need to show that if ban was not there situation won't be as worse.
A, the best answer, clearly tells that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 773
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink]
26 Sep 2003, 12:21
Brainless wrote: AkamaiBrah wrote: praetorian123 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.
Please Explain your choice In my opinion, A is NOT the answer. (A) states that deer have not increased. Of course not -- people are shooting them. However, we are trying to strengthen the conclusion that the harm in enacting the ban exceeds that in allowing hunting. We have no ideas whether hunting-oriented accidents had increased for this town, hence no way to judge whether or not this strengthens or weakens the conclusion. Hence, this is irrelevant. (B) states that deer create a road hazard. Since the population of deer has increased six-fold, it is reasonable to assume that the hazard has also increased. Since this describes yet another increased danger to public safety, it certainly supports the conclusion and is my choice for the answer. (C) may be true but does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety. (D) nice people. Gold star for them. Irrelavent. (E) may also be true and though it points out how the ban may incrase the danger to the poor defenseless shrubs, it does nothing to support the conclusion that this increases the danger to public safety. B is already stated in the stimulus : " Damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists"Hence it does NOT add any thing to augment the argument. As it is mentioned in the stimulus ( " Deer are invading residential areas" ), by invading residential areas deer cause harm to the trees and shrubs, so I still feel E is best answer. Oops, my bad. In my haste I neglected to notice that the accidents are already mentioned. (Where did the problem come from? there is a sentence fragment in it...).
I suppose I have to agree with E at this point. Although it does not provide an additional example of harm to public safety per se, it does provide an example of additional damage with I suppose supports that conclusion that there is more harm done than averted.
good catch
_________________
Best,
AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 95
Location: China
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
BTW, this question is from LSAT test#7(p.15 of 10 actual official LSAT preptest), the given answer is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 May 2003
Posts: 21
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I vote for A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
