Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds

Question

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.

GMATNinjaTwo · Accepted Answer

Aketa ,

The passage states that, "Deer are {...} causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists." The questions asks, "Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest  additional  support for the conclusion above?", and choice B doesn't give us any  additional  support...

Even if this statement is true, it doesn't tell us anything about the number of motor vehicle accidents in Greenfield County. In other words, while it may be true that motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both, nothing in choice B tells us how often such accidents actually occur in Greenfield County, if at all. And even if such accidents do occur and, say 90% of those accidents result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both, it is possible that most of that 90% is comprised of accidents that only result in damage to the vehicle. Choice B only tell us that  some  motor vehicle accidents involving deer result in injury to the motorist, but it gives us no idea of how often such injuries occur or of how serious those injuries are. The passage already states that deer are causing motor vehicles accidents that result in  serious  injury to motorists; since choice B does not tell us anything about the frequency of such accidents and injuries in Greenfield County or the seriousness of those injuries, it does not provide any additional support.

Choice A, on the other hand, gives us additional information that strongly supports the conclusion. The argument is based on the assumption that the hunting ban caused the increase in the deer population, but it is certainly possible that other factors led to the increase. Choice A provides evidence that the ban was, in fact, the cause of the population increase, thus strengthening the argument.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) Yes.  It is possible that the deer population would have increased dramatically even if hunting had not been banned. That the deer population did not increase in nearby counties which permit hunting provides strong evidence that the ban on hunting caused the dramatic increase in population.

(B) No. The passage already states the accidents result in serious injury.

(C) No. This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(D) No. This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(E) No. The passage already states that the deer are damaging property; besides, damaged landscaping is not a danger to public safety.

shekyonline · Answer

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.

Main :conclusion: ban has resulted in large deer population. the ban is unnecessary and created problems to public safety.
premise: deer population after ban 6 times larger than that of before ban -> accidents by invasion, injuries to motorists.

it asks additional support -> not stated in the paragraph.

'where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years'
clearly supports the conclusion - 
"ban has resulted in large deer population"
correct.

(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.
not additional support to conclusion.

(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition
become more widespread among the deer herds.

Irrelevant.does not lead to conclusion.
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer.
Irrelevant/ no mention. does not lead to conclusion.
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing ontwigs and saplings.
Irrelevant/ no mention. does not lead to conclusion.

Aketa · Answer

hello experts,

could you please explain why b is wrong. i choose b over a because imo the additional conclusion should be more towards the damages caused by the ban as it is something that should logically follow.

arshiyakhanna · Answer

Conclusion: Ban was unnecessary and created more damage than do good.
Premise: Post the ban on hunting, deer population has increased, causing injuries & accidents
Assumption: Ban is the only reason that deer population increased
Support to assumption: Ans A - supports 'no other reason'

arunavamunshi1988 · Answer

I guess A is the ans.... The assumption here is 'There is no other reasons apart from banning hunting is the cause of growing number of deers'... Only A is strengthening the assumption.

nks2611 · Answer

The answer should be A
Option b only talks about damges but doesn't talk about conclusion so wrong
Option c is little bit weaking 
Option D is irrelevant 
Option E o/s

Sent from my vivo 1601 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

harsha3699 · Answer

A is correct... but rather in the option if it was given,,, that the deer polulation remained constant(Neither increased nor decreased)... compared to what has been given... as it did not increase.... OPTION A WOULD HAVE BEEN A RIGHT ON THE MONEY ANSWER.... i feel the ambiguity in option A is what makes this question a little skewed and a bit tricky.

Skywalker18 · Answer

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.

Boil it down - 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. -Correct -if hunting were allowed, it would lessen the deer population and therefore the injuries that it causes. (A) gives us evidence that hunting would keep the population down.
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. -- repeats the premise
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. -- Out of scope
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. -- Out of scope
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings. -- Irrelevant

Answer A

septwibowo · Answer

Try to explain : A.

- This is cause and effect passage.
-  Cause  : hunting ban.  Effect  : Deer population increase, thus public safety is threatened.
- Choice A strongly support the conclusion because without cause ( hunting is permitted ), no effect happened ( deer population stable ) in the surrounding counties.
- While choice B, well, doesn't talk anything about ban.

Wdyt?

GMATSkilled · Answer

(A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. -  This shows that the ban on hunting was indeed unnecessary and that the ban has led to a six fold increase in the deer population. Hence, increasing danger to public safety   
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. -   the question stem asks for "additional support". The fact that motor vehicle accidents cause injury to motorists is already stated in the argument - causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists -  
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. -  This actually weakens stating that the deer are not capable of causing harm 
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. -  This could mean that people dont consider deer as a danger to public safety 
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings. -  Out of scope. The argument is concerned with danger to public safety not danger to vegitation

gmatexam439 · Answer

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. - Correct. Tells that hunting would have indeed helped in keeping the environment safe for the humans.
 (B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. - This is the repetition of the premise 
(C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. - Out of scope 
(D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. - Out of scope 
(E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings. - We already know that deer are a menace

Mizar18 · Answer

The key to solve this one is to notice the final part of the argument "that would not otherwise exist.", so only option A) confirms this one by stating that there is no "special" trend that is increasing population of the deer.

B) is wrong because it just confirms the validity of a premise.

B) is wrong because it just confirms the validity of a premise.

shrgmat · Answer

Hello Mr Ninja

, I don't like this question for one simple reason. B is eliminated ONLY because it repeats a piece of information from the prompt. There are some GMAT questions like this. I have learned to except this fact & use it. Whenever, you have to chose between 2 options and one of them repeats the info from the prompt, go for the other. It is so 'dumb' and mechanical to be honest and not really sound reasoning. Unfortunate that these questions do exist. I can ONLY hope that these "lazy" questions go away. GMAC spends 3k per qn, apparently. And you get this for 3k+. Someone is not doing his / her job.. Unfortunately, I can curse all I want but it is their exam!! Yes, I noticed how you "went all in on one word in the question" - Additional. Yes, that's a good strategy and works. I have noticed that in CR questions. But, I don't like that either though this is lesser of the 2 evils (prefer this over the "eliminate because it repeats from the prompt").

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards