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 has created a danger to public safety, which would not have existed otherwise. This is because the increased deer population is leading to accidents and other issues.

02

Identify the Premises

The premises for this conclusion are: (1) the deer population increased sixfold after the hunting ban, and (2) this increase is causing property damage and vehicle accidents, which never happened due to hunting-related injuries before.

03

Determine What Strengthens the Conclusion

To strengthen the conclusion, additional evidence is needed that directly links the hunting ban with the dangers caused by the increasing deer population. The evidence should show that without the ban, these dangers would be lessened.

04

Analyze Each Option

Consider each option: - (A) If other counties with hunting have stable deer populations, it implies that the ban is tied to the population increase in Greenfield. - (B) This restates part of the existing premise and doesn't directly support the ban's impact. - (C) Discusses deer health, not direct public danger or link to the ban. - (D) Suggests why deer might congregate more in residential areas but doesn't discuss the ban's impact. - (E) Shows potential damage caused by deer but doesn’t connect to the impact of the ban.

05

Choose the Strongest Supporting Option

Option A is the strongest because it provides a comparison to areas where hunting is allowed, suggesting that hunting controls deer population growth, thereby indirectly supporting the conclusion that lifting the ban would mitigate the current dangers.

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.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis is the process of examining a statement to understand its components, such as premises and conclusions. The goal is to break down the argument and assess its validity. In the Greenfield County argument, we start by identifying the conclusion: the hunting ban has increased public safety risks due to the rising deer population. This conclusion is supported by premises such as the absence of hunting-related injuries before the ban and the subsequent property damage and accidents caused by deer.

Analyzing arguments involves:

• Identifying the main claim or conclusion.
• Determining the supporting premises or evidence.
• Checking the logical connections between premises and conclusion.

Through proper analysis, you can evaluate if the argument is sound and well-founded. This skill is essential in various exams like the LSAT, where logical reasoning is evaluated.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking allows us to engage with information thoughtfully and analytically. It involves questioning assumptions and evaluating evidence. In the exercise's context, critical thinking involves scrutinizing the rationale behind the hunting ban and understanding its consequences.

Here, we see a need for balancing different perspectives, such as wildlife management and public safety. Critical thinkers consider whether the ban's intended public safety benefits outweigh its drawbacks, like increased motor vehicle accidents due to a larger deer population.

• Question underlying assumptions, such as if the ban was indeed necessary.
• Evaluate the outcomes of actions, like banning hunting, on the community and environment.
• Consider alternative solutions that might better serve the objective of public safety.

In the process, students learn to make well-reasoned decisions based on evidence.

Logical Reasoning Skills

Logical reasoning skills are crucial for solving problems and making sound judgments. These skills involve the ability to follow an argument, assess its validity, and identify logical fallacies.

In the scenario of the hunting ban, strong logical reasoning can help determine if the premises effectively support the conclusion that public safety has worsened. It requires:

• Recognizing whether the argument uses sound evidence.
• Identifying any fallacies, such as assuming an effect without a direct cause.
• Comparing similar scenarios in different contexts, as done with surrounding counties.

Improving logical reasoning skills improves decision-making capabilities, vital for academic success and everyday life.

Premise and Conclusion Identification

Premise and conclusion identification is fundamental to understanding any argument. A premise provides the support or reasoning, while a conclusion is the main point or claim derived from those premises.

In the hunting ban argument, identifying the conclusion is relatively straightforward: the ban created new safety hazards. The premises include the increased deer population and the resulting public safety issues, such as car accidents.

Steps involved:

• Read through the argument, looking for key words like 'therefore' or 'because,' which often signal conclusions and premises.
• Distinguish between factual statements and the claims they attempt to prove.
• Ensure that premises logically lead to the conclusion, checking for any 'gaps' in logic.

Successfully pinpointing these components is crucial for dissecting complex arguments, particularly in tests like the LSAT.