PT7.S1.Q5 - Many Enviromentalist have urged enviromental..

kgaravit-1-1kgaravit-1-1 Monthly Member
edited March 2 in Logical Reasoning 12 karma

Prep Test 7 - Section 1- Question 15

I got this answer wrong and was unsure of my answer. Is the correct AC A right because it strengthens the premises to fill in a gap where the deer population increase after the hunting ban could still exist even without the hunting ban? Like for example, a change in the ecosystem in which a predator of deer migrates etc.

I choose B because the key words relating to accidents and public saftey. I felt skeptical about this choice because the AC was reiterating what was already in the stimulus

Can anyone offer any advice on how to more easily eliminate B and choose A when answering this question?


  • trevorNYCgoaltrevorNYCgoal Monthly Member
    234 karma

    I just drilled this question the other day so I'll explain my reasoning and hopefully it can be of some value!

    Important to start with the argument: Hunting was banned eight years ago. Now the deer population is six times the size it was before the ban. With more deer, we have incidents such as damage of property and motor vehicle accidents. Since there were never any hunting related injuries, the ban is unnecessary and has created a danger to the public.

    It's important to recognize that the ban is being described as dangerous because of the aforementioned incidents of property damage and motor vehicle accidents involving deer.

    We need to support/strengthen this argument.

    It seems you were able to get rid of C D E relatively quickly, which is important. All of them are irrelevant to the argument. Who cares about shrubs, neighborhood feeding habits, or the health of deer herds.

    That leaves A and B.

    Why A is correct? The author of our argument is directly linking the increase in deer population as a result of the ban on hunting as being a danger to the public. We need to strengthen that. The way I got to understand A as being correct is looking at the contrapositive (I use contrapositive liberally because it's not a traditional conditional statement) of that statement. What would happen if in the surrounding counties that are mentioned where hunting is still permitted, the deer population are running rampant just like in Greenfield County (our county)? That would show that with or without hunting, deer are growing exponentially. If the deer population continues to grow with hunting, that would be a huge flaw in our author's argument. That would show that the hunting ban can't be the reason for the increase of deer related dangers because it would've happened with or without the hunting ban.

    B. I had also narrowed it down to A and B. Like you, I noticed immediately that it was restating what is already mentioned in the stimulus. That to me was immediately odd and I went first to A. Just doing a quick scan over the AC's, I'd rather spend more time with the ACs that are introducing new information to the stimulus than the ones that are restating what is already known. B is just not relevant to strengthening the argument. The author is directly correlating the ban with an increase in danger, and B wouldn't do anything to dispel that.

    In terms of how to select the correct AC (A) and avoid B, you were right there with recognizing why A is important. You saw the need to solidify the link between hunting and non hunting and subsequently the increase (or lack thereof) in deer population. If I can offer any of my own personal advice, I like to give the "time of day" to the ACs that are bringing in new information or circumstances to an argument. Especially for NA and Strengthen questions. B we had seen before, A we hadn't. After reading B and recognizing that it was restated information, I immediately wanted to go to A. I also like to channel my inner J.Y. "Who cares?" monologue with ACs. If they appear largely irrelevant or just have fluff information, who cares about them? That helped me eliminate C D E. Lastly, running the opposite of ACs is what is particularly helpful in Strengthen and NA questions? For B, what if Motor vehicle accidents involving deer don't often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both? Does that change the argument? Whereas with A, what if in surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of deer population has increased in the last eight years? All the sudden, can we link hunting at all with the deer population? That is what the opposite of A would introduce to the argument, and subsequently why A being true is important in strengthening the argument.

    This was a long winded response and I hope it helps a little (with answering the question and seeing how/why to chose the correct AC). It was largely a stream of my consciousness when answer this question. For these types of questions, I'd say don't be afraid to eliminate when necessary but to take the time of day to evaluate the ACs and with this particular question type, see how the opposite scenario would work the argument. Best of luck!

Sign In or Register to comment.