15. 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. Answer: A 但我觉得B好象更对 谢谢.
我记得有一道类似的LSAT题: 结论是法规没有对限制污染起到作用..因为: 即使有法规,污染还在上升..人们健康没有下降,反而上升..要SUPPORT法规有用 D 如果没有法规,污染上升得还要厉害,健康水平就不会上升得这么厉害.. E 10年前,没有法规,健康水平上升得比现在慢得多... 答案选了D...我觉得E和现在的A很相似,一个是不同城市的比较....一个是不同时间的比较....都是很弱的SUPPORT...因为你需要知道是否具有可比性??
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-6-4 11:40:00
楼主