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.
Which one of the above answer would be better? why?
Fact 1: There is a ban on hunting Fact 2. Deer population has increased => threat on public safety Conclusion: The ban is unncessary + caused the threat
A illustrates the fact that: no ban => no increase in deer population (connects fact 1 with fact 2) B digresses by talking about the consequence of a motor accident involving deers.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2004-4-12 05:59:00
[求助]Logic reasoning
