I narrowed down the answer choices to C and D but went with C because one of the assumptions I brainstormed was that there would have had to have been a lower number of deers killed before the construction started in order for the author’s conclusion to be true. But is answer choice C wrong because the conclusion of the paragraph is alluding to “forests” in general and not specifically Pataska Forest? (FYI answer choice was D)
Hi! C is wrong because what happened in the past is not relevant to what might happen after extensive housing construction. More deers can still be hit regardless of the past. So, it does not have any effect on the author’s conclusion.
This is sallu bhai’s favourite question. Deer and hitting with a car in one
Assumption is information not stated in the argument that has to be true in order for the argument’s logic to hold.
Conclusion: Deer hit by cars will be much higher after housing is occupied than before the construction and new roads.
A) commercial vehicle — irrelevant
B) comparing forest edge around road to forest edge around new house. — irrelevant
C) In past, number of deer hit on existing roads has been been very low — talks about past and existing road. Even if it were true/considered will weaken the conclusion.
E)Deer hunting — irrelevant
D) is correct by POE, as well as logic because it says there are sufficient number of deer left after construction to die by being hit by cars. If this assumption is not made that means deer died before construction itself and then none will be left to get hit by a car.
