Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 01:59

### 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

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

# Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 236
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 20 Sep 2017, 02:15
2
15
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (02:00) correct 49% (02:03) wrong based on 674 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Source: LSAT

_________________
We Shall Overcome... One day...

Originally posted by nahid78 on 23 Mar 2017, 08:09.
Last edited by broall on 20 Sep 2017, 02:15, edited 2 times in total.
Edited the question
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Posts: 178
GPA: 3.31
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2017, 10:57
2
2
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.
_________________
In case you find my posts helpful, give me Kudos. Thank you.
Intern
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 14
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2017, 08:29
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.
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Posts: 16
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2017, 11:40
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'
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 264
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2017, 19:56
3
Quote:
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.

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...

Quote:
(B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both.

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.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 120
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2017, 02:36
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 255
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2017, 02:45
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
Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Posts: 39
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2017, 23:30
1
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2351
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2017, 08:04
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

_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 232
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2017, 22:31
nahid78 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.

Source: LSAT

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?
_________________
There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2017
Posts: 77
Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2018, 18:35
nahid78 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.

(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
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1212
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2018, 09:09
1
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
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4774
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jun 2019, 14:39
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield   [#permalink] 21 Jun 2019, 14:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne