Last visit was: 19 Jul 2025, 17:37 It is currently 19 Jul 2025, 17:37
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
nahid78
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Last visit: 30 Apr 2023
Posts: 286
Own Kudos:
694
 [56]
Given Kudos: 1,062
Products:
Posts: 286
Kudos: 694
 [56]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
48
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATNinjaTwo
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Jul 2025
Posts: 235
Own Kudos:
1,077
 [6]
Given Kudos: 1,070
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 235
Kudos: 1,077
 [6]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Jul 2025
Posts: 102,627
Own Kudos:
742,793
 [1]
Given Kudos: 98,235
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 102,627
Kudos: 742,793
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
shekyonline
Joined: 10 Apr 2015
Last visit: 30 Dec 2017
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
95
 [4]
Given Kudos: 35
GPA: 3.31
Posts: 114
Kudos: 95
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
Aketa
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Last visit: 06 Jul 2017
Posts: 10
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 10
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
arshiyakhanna
Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Last visit: 06 Sep 2020
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 79
Posts: 15
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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'
User avatar
arunavamunshi1988
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Last visit: 10 Jul 2018
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 136
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
Posts: 75
Kudos: 40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
nks2611
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Last visit: 06 Apr 2020
Posts: 190
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 89
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE:Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
Posts: 190
Kudos: 70
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
harsha3699
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Last visit: 07 Jun 2024
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
75
 [1]
Given Kudos: 405
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
Posts: 75
Kudos: 75
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 2,052
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
Posts: 2,052
Kudos: 9,704
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
septwibowo
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Last visit: 20 Mar 2025
Posts: 189
Own Kudos:
190
 [1]
Given Kudos: 285
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE:Marketing (Education)
Products:
Posts: 189
Kudos: 190
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nahid78
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?
User avatar
GMATSkilled
Joined: 08 Apr 2017
Last visit: 07 May 2019
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 74
Posts: 54
Kudos: 608
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nahid78
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
User avatar
gmatexam439
User avatar
Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Last visit: 18 Oct 2024
Posts: 1,066
Own Kudos:
2,130
 [1]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Products:
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Posts: 1,066
Kudos: 2,130
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
Mizar18
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Last visit: 06 Jun 2025
Posts: 177
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 130
Location: Peru
Posts: 177
Kudos: 264
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
shrgmat
Joined: 11 Nov 2020
Last visit: 25 Dec 2021
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 44
Kudos: 15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinjaTwo
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.

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").
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,456
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,456
Kudos: 955
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts