#15 - Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-CE. The correct answer choice is (A)

The stimulus reports that a ban on hunting was intended to protect human safety, but the resulting deer infestation has itself harmed human safety. The stimulus observes that, before, no-one had been harmed by hunting, and concludes that the ban was unnecessary and created a new danger to public safety that would otherwise not exist.

The argument presumes a number of factors. One could easily write an essay about the presumptions of this superficially convincing argument, so it is better to read over the question. You are asked to provide additional support for the conclusion, so you should look for an answer choice that addresses a relevant factor.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It is possible that the deer population in Greenfield County would have increased even without the ban on hunting, and that would undermine the idea that the ban created the problem. However, this choice provides that in surrounding counties where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased. That makes it more likely that it is the ban that has permitted the increase. (Furthermore, the deer are clearly vacating to safe territory. Shoot some of them, and encourage them to take their chances in those surrounding counties.)

Answer choice (B): This choice states that collisions with deer tend to be problematic. Unfortunately, the stimulus involves deciding whether the ban led to a danger to public safety that would not have otherwise occurred. Whether most collisions with deer are problematic does little to address that issue, so it is difficult to connect this irrelevant choice with the argumentation.

Answer choice (C): This choice involves the health of deer, but the stimulus concerns public safety.

Answer choice (D): This choice suggests that it is public interaction with the deer that has causally contributed to the threat to public safety, which weakens the idea that only the ban is responsible.

Answer choice (E): This choice merely explains a type of damage that deer cause, which does not help establish that the ban is the only cause of the problem.

[reop6780]

First of all, I want to make sure whether this question is "strengthen" type. - because I solved it based upon such belief.

I chose B for the answer, believing that there is no other answer strengthening the argument.

The argument made in this stimuli is, "the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist."

B does strengthen the argument, but I did have my own skepticism because of the following sentence in the stimuli, "...causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists."

Yes, B is already stated in the stimuli.

Is the reason why B is incorrect that B is stated already?

Also, the right answer is A, and I do not simply understand how it strengthen the argument.

There is no implication that increase in deer population leads to increased danger to public safety.

Thus, I need a help to understand why this simple fact of constant population of deer strengthens the argument to support the argument.

Thank you

[Ron Gore]

Thanks for your question, Reop!

This indeed is a strengthen question. You are looking for an answer choice that will support the argument's causal conclusion that the ban on hunting was unnecessary and has created a danger to public safety that otherwise did not exist.

This conclusion is the result of causal reasoning. The author has inferred causation from the correlation that during the time the hunting ban has been in place, the following circumstances have changed: (1) the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban; and (2) deer are invading residential areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists.

The author also says the hunting ban was unnecessary, because there were never any hunting deaths in the county.

Your Prephrase is that there are multiple ways in which an answer choice could support this conclusion. It is best not to try to come up with specific language to be used by the answer choice.

The correct answer choice, (A), supports the conclusion by providing evidence to strengthen the causal inference that the hunting ban caused the increase in the deer population in the county. It does so by showing that in a county where that same cause (i.e., a hunting ban) was not in place, then the effect identified (increase in deer population) did not occur.

Answer choice (B) does not strengthen the conclusion, because it merely restates the idea that deer cause car accidents resulting in property damage and injuries, and does nothing to strengthen the connection between the hunting ban and the increase in the number of deer. It was this second connection that was the subject of the inference from correlation to causation in the conclusion, and so it is this connection that the correct answer choice will likely strengthen.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Thanks,

Ron

[reop6780]

Your response was detailed, easy to understand, and relevant to the LR bible !!

You helped me a lot.

Thank you!

[Ron Gore]

You're welcome!

[reop6780]

I was reading "causation" part of LR bible, and I realized I need a further help. From your explanation,

"Answer choice (B) does not strengthen the conclusion, because it merely restates the idea that deer cause car accidents resulting in property damage and injuries, and does nothing to strengthen the connection between the hunting ban and the increase in the number of deer. It was this second connection that was the subject of the inference from correlation to causation in the conclusion, and so it is this connection that the correct answer choice will likely strengthen"

I wanted to clarify "this second connection." Does it refer to "between the hunting ban and the increase in the number of deer" instead of premise (2) stated earlier?

Also, if it is the connection "between the hunting ban and the increase in the number of deer," why is this THE connection to be strengthened?

Could you break the premises to demonstrate this is THE connection? (I didn't expect this may be the only obvious connection that needs to be strengthened)

Similarly, on pg 203 of LR bible (causation part) there is an example of causation,

" Premise : Average temperatures are higher at the equator than in any other area

Premise : Individuals living at or near the equator tend to have lower per-capita incomes than individuals living elsewhere

Conclusion: Therefore, higher average temperatures cause lower per-capita incomes"

It says this is flawed in that there could be multiple causes leading to such effect.

My final question is that to strengthen this example, should I work with the basic connection (living at the equator) ?

I was wondering if this basic connection of "living at the equator" is the similarly weak link to be strengthened like the connection of "increased deer population" in the question if both of the connection are meant the same thing.

Thank you

[Ron Gore]

Hi Reop!

You asked essentially three questions, which I've answered below. If I've missed anything you asked, or if you need further clarification, please don't hesitate to ask.

Q1: To what does "second connection" in my original response refer?

A1: It refers to the causal relationship between the hunting ban and in sixfold increase in the number of deer.


Q2: Why did I focus on that causal connection as the one to be strengthened?

A2: I focused on it because the Prephrase should always focus on the conclusion, and that was the causal relationship presented in the conclusion. Notice the question stem, which tasks you with selecting the answer choice that "provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above".

While the other causal relationship mentioned, the damage caused by the deer now that they are present in increased numbers, that relationship is provided as a fact. It is the logical gap between the hunting ban and the increased number of deer that creates the greatest weakness in the argument.


Q3: What is the similarity between this example and the higher temperature/lower per capita income example from the Logical Reasoning Bible?

A3: As you've presented the example, the conclusion that higher temperatures cause a lower than average per capita income is indeed very similar to that in the deer population question. In both cases the premises establish a correlation, while the conclusion infers causation.

Also, I would caution you to be more precise in your Prephrase. It is not living at the equator that is inferred to be the cause, but rather higher average temperatures. To strengthen the conclusion that the relationship between higher than average temperatures and lower per capita income is causal, an answer choice could provide any number of facts that tie more closely together the purported cause to its effect.

Thanks!

Ron

[reop6780]

Your response is so great ! than you !

[Ron Gore]

You're welcome. Good luck!

[puppytiff]

I was between A&B for this question, but ultimately went with B.

Based on my understanding, there are two causal relationships--

Premise (CR1): hunting ban causes deer population increase
Premise (CR2): deer pose threat to public safety
Conclusion: hunting ban is unnecessary and create danger to public safety

To diagram the relationship, it looks like--

Hunting ban --> Deer population increase --> Danger to public safety

Choice B explains that deer causes danger to public safety, which is the second causal relationship. Choice A strengthens the first relationship, by showing that when cause (hunting ban) doesn't exist, effect (deer population) doesn't happen. However, A doesn't address the effect of threat to public safety, which is directly addressed in the conclusion.

How should I determine which one is the right answer?