Q15 - Eight years ago hunting was banned

[yama_sekander]

i just want to double check


the reason why B is wrong is because the question states "additional support" since the premise already gives us this statement, it is a repeat premise does not give us any additional information. correct?

[maryadkins]

This is a strengthen question. The core is:

there were never any hunting related injuries in the county

+

huge deer population is problem b/c they cause accidents and damage

-->

the ban was unnecessary and created a new danger

What's the assumption? One is that the hunting ban is the reason why the deer population has exploded and is causing accidents. In other words, 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) is a premise booster (bingo, you nailed it). We're already told that the deer cause accidents that cause serious injury.
(C) is out of scope.
(D) is also out of scope.
(E) doesn't tell us anything about safety.

[slimjimsquinn]

I originally picked C). Is it out of scope because the disease and malnutrition is applying to deer herds?

Because public safety refers to human public safety?

Thank you!

[austindyoung]

I originally picked C). Is it out of scope because the disease and malnutrition is applying to deer herds?

Because public safety refers to human public safety?

Thank you!

Ya- (C) is simply out of scope. It gives no reason for us to accept the causal assumption of the argument: that no hunting caused increase in deer population.

Also- we know nothing about the size of this deer population, besides that its not good for the community. In (C) we have to assume that the deer increase in the stim isn't the optimal size- but we are given no information to make this judgement.

And yes- we don't care about the safety of the deer in this stim. Actually, in plenty of assumption questions (like Weaken) an answer choice will say something like: "Choosing the alternative method damages life expectancy." But if the argument core is about choosing one method over another (let's say one type of gun for another for accuracy in duck hunting) then we don't care about life expectancy and it wouldn't weaken the argument- which isn't about that.

Be aware of background information that illuminates the Core, but isn't part of the core. You only (almost always) need the core for assumption questions, which could (many times) end up being a tiny part of the whole stimulus.

HTH

[WaltGrace1983]

I actually think (D) might even weaken the argument, if anything. The argument is saying that, BECAUSE there is a ban on hunting, the ban CREATED a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist. The assumption is that there is a causal connection between hunting and the population increase/the damage that these deer do as they invade residential areas, damage property, and cause accidents.

(D) seems to say though that there is actually a different reason why the deer might be coming into residential areas: "many residents provide food and salt for deer." Maybe the deer know that they can get food from the residents and so they invade these areas, cause the damage, etc.

I dunno, not a perfect weakener but I think it does nonetheless weaken.

[uhdang]

This is a Strengthening Question.
For Strengthening questions, ultimately we are looking for the answer choice that helps explaining the conclusion.

Here is the core:

Ban on hunting 8 yrs ago + deer population 6 times increase, leading to public dangers. + never any hunting-injuries in the country

==>

ban was unnecessary and created a danger to public safety.

This argument assumes that hunting ban is the only thing that contributed to increasing deer population. What if there was a declining number of predators that resulted in bigger deer population? In order to strengthen this argument, bridge this gap or provide additional support, or eliminate alternate cause.

A) This confirms the assumption by comparing with similar environment where only difference is the hunting ban (as far as we know). This narrows down the reason for deer population explosion. Other places where hunting is not banned have deer population remained the same. So, hunting ban IS the only cause for increasing population of deer in this county. Since increased deer population led to public safety trouble following the passage, A) strengthens the conclusion.

B) Not only is this a premise booster, but this is wrong because B) talks about the motor vehicle accidents involving deer in general. We are concerned with danger caused by increased deer population from the hunting-ban in this county. And since we are not concerned with this but concerned with hunting ban and its impact on the county, this has no influence on the conclusion.

C) “beyond optimal size” is a vague and undefined expression. Even if it looks so much from residents' eyes, it might not be beyond optimal size and wouldn't cause malnutrition. And even if it does cause malnutrition, we are concerned with deer’s influence on public safety, not to themselves. No influence on the conclusion.

D) This weakens the conclusion. By providing the alternate cause for population increase, it weakens the conclusion that banning was unnecessary and it was only banning that caused trouble regarding deer. This scenario provides a route of residents’ providing food - increased population - causing danger / providing food - coming to residential area - causing danger.

E) This is a negative impact of deer in general. This does not cover consequences of increased deer population. No influence on the conclusion.

[tommywallach]

We call 'em strengthen.

[Theodore S K525]

Why is the argument core not made up of a 3 part premise?

The deer pop increased -> deer have caused more injuries -> there have been not hunting accidents before ban


|
¥


Therefore, ban was unnecessary