Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 02 Sep 2014, 23:51

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
CEO
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 667 [0], given: 781

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 08:27
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (01:56) correct 67% (01:09) wrong based on 3 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, 13:06, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 11:01
i would say A....b/c A is the missing premise that solidifies the conclusion
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 11:53
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 74
Location: california
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 12:40
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
CEO
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3470
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 667 [0], given: 781

 [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 13:22
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
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 771
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 00:59
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 06:35
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 258
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 08:19
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
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 771
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR - Deer Hunting [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 11:21
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: China
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2004, 20:27
BTW, this question is from LSAT test#7(p.15 of 10 actual official LSAT preptest), the given answer is A
  [#permalink] 01 Feb 2004, 20:27
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water Nihit 21 27 Sep 2008, 08:08
How old is Jim? (1) Eight years ago Jim was half as old as andrehaui 2 11 Jun 2007, 09:09
3 Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other motor zoom612 15 29 Jul 2006, 21:17
hunting Dan 4 12 Jul 2005, 04:42
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on WinWinMBA 6 19 May 2005, 12:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.