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 my choice:B作者: linsonstudy 时间: 2003-9-20 16:05
本题问的是“下列哪一项如果是真的，最能支持上面的 ‘结论’ ” 那上面的结论是什么呢？
结论是：clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety （the ban 非但没有必要，而且会给public带来危害。）
怎么得出这个结论呢？
1。the ban 实行后 deer 的数量增加。
2。 deer的数量增加后给public带来危险
对1或2其中之一进行进一步的强调都可以support the conclusion。
A就是相对the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban 提出了临国没有实施ban所以deer的数量没有增加，来进行进一步的支持，更加肯定了是由于ban实行的原因而不是其它原因带来deer的数量增加。
如果B或E可以从deer带来的更大破坏来support，也是一个好的答案。我会选B或E。但是这里的B或E只是对上面已经给的论据的重复，没有进一步说，所以不是最优答案。
[此贴子已经被作者于2003-9-20 16:08:23编辑过]
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
