91Ó°ÊÓ

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.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Conclusion

The conclusion of the argument states that the hunting ban in Greenfield County was unnecessary and that it has inadvertently led to a danger to public safety. This is because the deer population has increased, leading to property damage and accidents.

02

Identify Supporting Evidence

The current evidence states that the population of deer has increased sixfold since the ban, causing them to invade residential areas and lead to accidents. We need to find additional information that strengthens this conclusion.

03

Evaluate Option A

Option A states that in surrounding counties where hunting is allowed, the deer population has not increased. This supports the idea that hunting controls the deer population and that the absence of hunting (due to the ban) might be causing the increase in Greenfield County.

04

Evaluate Option B

Option B explains the consequences of motor vehicle accidents involving deer, reiterating the problem rather than providing direct support for the conclusion about the necessity of the hunting ban.

05

Evaluate Option C

Option C discusses the risks of increased deer populations, like disease and malnutrition, but does not directly support the conclusion about the ban's effect on public safety.

06

Evaluate Option D

Option D explains the current behavior of residents feeding deer but does not address the impact of the hunting ban or its necessity.

07

Evaluate Option E

Option E explains how deer damage property but does not directly address the argument regarding the necessity of the hunting ban.

08

Choose the Strongest Support

Option A provides the strongest additional support to the conclusion. It highlights the impact of the hunting ban by comparing it to surrounding counties where such a ban does not exist, thus implying that hunting controls deer population effectively.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

• Full Textbook Solutions

  Get detailed explanations and key concepts

• Unlimited Al creation

  Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

• Ads-free access

  To over 500 millions flashcards

• Money-back guarantee

  We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Hunting Ban Consequences

A hunting ban can have various consequences, particularly on wildlife populations. When hunting is prohibited, natural populations like deer may increase rapidly. This can lead to several issues:

• Overpopulation: Animals, such as deer, multiply beyond the ecosystem's capacity.
• Resource Scarcity: More animals lead to a depletion of available food and resources.
• Increased Human-Wildlife Interaction: Larger animal populations tend to stray into residential areas in search of food.

Each of these outcomes can negatively affect both the environment and human communities. Greenfield County's scenario, where the deer population increased sixfold after the ban, highlights these consequences. Understanding these effects is vital in evaluating the effectiveness of such policies.

Public Safety Issues

When wildlife populations explode due to a hunting ban, public safety issues may arise. As seen in Greenfield County:

• Motor Vehicle Accidents: Deer crossing roads can cause serious accidents.
• Property Damage: Animals entering residential areas can destroy gardens, crops, and even infrastructure.

Both factors contribute significantly to public safety concerns. In these situations, the goal of preventing harm through a hunting ban might ironically lead to greater risks. These risks underscore the importance of carefully considering all aspects of wildlife management policies.

Wildlife Management

Effective wildlife management is crucial in maintaining balanced ecosystems. This involves controlling animal populations like deer to ensure resources are available, populations remain healthy, and public safety is not compromised. Key aspects of wildlife management include:

• Regulated Hunting: Allows for population control while minimizing human-wildlife conflicts.
• Habitat Management: Ensuring enough resources are available to support healthy wildlife populations.

The situation in Greenfield County illustrates a failure in wildlife management. Without strategic planning and control, the ban on hunting inadvertently created challenges. A robust wildlife management plan would account for potential outcomes of such bans and implement alternatives to ensure ecological balance.

Argument Evaluation

Evaluating arguments, especially in LSAT Logical Reasoning, involves understanding premises and conclusions. The conclusion in the Greenfield County scenario is that the hunting ban was unnecessary and has led to increased public safety risks. To evaluate this, consider the following:

• Supportive Evidence: How does each piece of information strengthen or weaken the conclusion?
• Comparisons: Analyzing data from similar contexts, like nearby counties, offers insights.

In this instance, Option A provides the strongest support by showing the effect of hunting on deer population control. Evaluating such arguments requires critical thinking to identify which evidence most effectively reinforces or contradicts the conclusion. This skill is crucial not only for assessments like the LSAT but also for real-world decision-making.