LSAT7I-15请教

luoye1

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.

himba

是A。
原文说是因为原先禁止捕鹿，现在造成损害。所以要放开。
如何支持呢？
A说明了其它地区没有禁止，所以没有伤害。就是明确了是因为禁鹿这个原因，而不是其它的原因造成的。

luoye1

但是A只是介绍了其他地区没有禁止鹿,然后鹿没有增长这种现象...虽然有增强的意思...但不是很强...因为它并没有明确说明是因为法律造成了鹿数量没有增长...也许还有别的原因呢??所以我觉得A是很弱的增强..这种选项好象LSAT经常不选的...
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??
B重复了原文的证据,难道不是SUPPORT吗?? 相当于证实证据的正确性..

efficiency

A   重复证据并不是支持。
原文讲是禁鹿==>鹿太多==>危险 。要确认这个关系，要说明不是其它原因，而是禁鹿造成的。A就是说明了这一点。
你体会一下其它的支持题，有很多是这样的。希望能有帮助。