hunting season

[ZoeZ42]

Dear instructors,

here is a Explain Discrepancy plus Except question from MANHATTAN , problem set #6 P 227, 6th Edition, Critical Reasoning

Hunting Season In an effort to reduce the number of deer, and therefore decrease the number of automobile accidents caused by deer, the government lengthened the deer hunting season earlier this year. Surprisingly, the number of accidents caused by deer has increased substantially since the introduction of the longer hunting season.

All of the following, if true, help to explain the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer EXCEPT:

(A) The presence of humans in the woods causes the deer to move to new areas, which causes the deer to cross roads more frequently than normal.
(B) In the area where the deer live, traffic has increased substantially precisely because of the lengthened hunting season.
(C) Most automobile accidents involving deer result from cars swerving to avoid deer, and leave the deer in question unharmed.
(D) Deer tend to bolt when hearing gunshots or other loud sounds and are more likely to run across a road without warning.
(E) A new highway was recently built directly through the state’s largest forest, which is the primary habitat of the state’s deer population.

I have doubt on (B) and (C), i choose (B) while answer is (C)
I excerpted the explanation from MANHATTAN
(B) In the area where the deer live, traffic has increased substantially precisely because of the lengthened hunting season.
Oh, this makes sense. The lengthened hunting season actually caused more traffic, so there are more chances for accidents between cars and deer where the deer live. This explains the discrepancy, too.

My doubt: (B) is paraphrase one of the discrepancy that "the number of accidents caused by deer has substantially since the introduction of th longer humtomg season."
another discrepancy in the dtimulus is lengthen the deer hunting season to reduce the number of deer , therefore to reduce the number of automobile accidents caused by deer.
when I add the correct answer into the argument, i don't think that makes sense, becuse i think it is the same meaning of one of the discrepancy, that's why i choose (B).
Review the example from MANHATTAN, same section - Explain a Discrepancy, P 216
According to researchers, low dosages of aspirin taken daily can significantly reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke. Yet doctors have stopped recommending daily aspirin for most patients
if here is a answer choise that :
Doctors stopped suggesting daily aspirin for most parients.
I don't think this is a correct answer cuz it does paraphrase the discrepancy, moreover, i don't think it makes the argument more sense if i add it to the arguemnt.

(C)Most automobile accidents involving deer result from cars swerving to avoid deer, and leave the deer in question unharmed.
This one is tricky! It sounded like it explained the discrepancy when I first read it, but then I realized something: it’s just explaining how the accidents tend to happen, but it doesn’t address why there are more accidents now than there used to be.
My doubt: the word "result from" indicate a cause of the accident, so "cars swerving to avoid deer " is a cause,
"and leave the deer in question unharmed." is a eventual purpose of the action of cars swerving, unfortunately, leading the increase of accidents., I added it to argument, i think it does make the argument sense, so i eliminated (C).
Please point out what's the problem.

thanks a lot.

have a nice day.
>_~

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Hi, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you about this. It seems that there are a few points to address:

In the "hunting season" problem, answer choice C doesn't explain the discrepancy. You're right that it seems relevant, but if we're precise about what the discrepancy is then we avoid the trap. C explains how some accidents happen, but it doesn't explain why the number of accidents has increased. Precision is the key here (just like finding the exact conclusion in other problems).

Answer choice B explains the discrepancy, as you saw. In the original passage, it doesn't mention increased traffic, so answer B is providing some new information. It's kind of obvious that a longer hunting season might mean more traffic: this is the kind of idea that an alert GMAT test taker will predict when reading the passage. However, it's not necessarily true: perhaps all the hunters live near the forest and go there on foot. So answer B tells us something new.

In the problem on p216 that you mention, you're right: just repeating the information that the passage gives you doesn't explain the discrepancy, so that wouldn't be a correct answer.

I hope this helps!

[ZoeZ42]

Hi, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you about this. It seems that there are a few points to address:

In the "hunting season" problem, answer choice C doesn't explain the discrepancy. You're right that it seems relevant, but if we're precise about what the discrepancy is then we avoid the trap. C explains how some accidents happen, but it doesn't explain why the number of accidents has increased. Precision is the key here (just like finding the exact conclusion in other problems).

Answer choice B explains the discrepancy, as you saw. In the original passage, it doesn't mention increased traffic, so answer B is providing some new information. It's kind of obvious that a longer hunting season might mean more traffic: this is the kind of idea that an alert GMAT test taker will predict when reading the passage. However, it's not necessarily true: perhaps all the hunters live near the forest and go there on foot. So answer B tells us something new.

In the problem on p216 that you mention, you're right: just repeating the information that the passage gives you doesn't explain the discrepancy, so that wouldn't be a correct answer.

I hope this helps!

Thanks Sage,
Awesome explanation. I like it.

one more question:
if switch "most" in C to "More", -- MORE automobile accidents involving deer result from cars swerving to avoid deer, and leave the deer in question unharmed,
then it wil be helpful explain the increase accident , right?

have a nice day
>_~

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Again, apologies for the delay. I'm glad that my last post was useful.

Regarding changing "most" to "more" in answer choice C, I don't think that it would help explain the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer. It's re-stating the fact that the number of accidents involving deer has increased (we knew that already). Sure, it gives some detail about the kind of accidents, but that doesn't explain why they happen.

[ZoeZ42]

Again, apologies for the delay. I'm glad that my last post was useful.

Regarding changing "most" to "more" in answer choice C, I don't think that it would help explain the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer. It's re-stating the fact that the number of accidents involving deer has increased (we knew that already). Sure, it gives some detail about the kind of accidents, but that doesn't explain why they happen.

thanks so much Sage.
I reviewed it again,

I figured out "since" in the conclusio states a timeframe ,which implies concurrence, not a cause-effect conjunction, that's why I mistakenly though B re-state one side of the precancy.

for changing "most" to be "more",
I am still a little confused, why it doesnot explain why they happen,
IMO, although it states how they happened, it states why as well.

genuinely want your help
have a nice day
>_~

[JbhB682]

Hi Sage - follow-up on E

I don't think "E" explains why the INCREASE IN HUNTING SEASON has not resulted in fewer car accidents

That's why I selected E because it does not explain why the "INCREASE IN HUNTING SEASON" has not made a difference.

Any thoughts on why E is allowed even though it does not have anything to do with "Hunting Season"

Thank you !

[esledge]

(E) explains the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer, despite the longer hunting season, by suggesting something else that caused the increase in accidents (proximity of deer to highway). There is no rule that the correct answers (or in this case, the incorrect answers, which explain the discrepancy) must mention every part of the given scenario. In fact, the explanation will often be something else entirely.

Edited to add:

The question wants you to explain "the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer," not necessarily why the longer hunting season failed to reduce accidents. In fact, the longer hunting season might still have been successful, but its success was offset by the things suggested in (A), (B), (D), or (E). Focus on the exact words of the question stem.

[JbhB682]

(E) explains the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer, despite the longer hunting season, by suggesting something else that caused the increase in accidents (proximity of deer to highway). There is no rule that the correct answers (or in this case, the incorrect answers, which explain the discrepancy) must mention every part of the given scenario. In fact, the explanation will often be something else entirely.

Edited to add:

The question wants you to explain "the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer," not necessarily why the longer hunting season failed to reduce accidents. In fact, the longer hunting season might still have been successful, but its success was offset by the things suggested in (A), (B), (D), or (E). Focus on the exact words of the question stem.

Hi Emily - Thank you for following up

Just focussing on the blue highlight.

I think my take-away is : I need to read the exact words in question stem specifically

Given the argument is so focussed primarily about "hunting season" -- I incorrectly assumed that the answer choice has to involve something to do with "hunting season"

but actually the question stem is talking about explaining the increase in traffic accidents caused by deer


Is this a regular trap you see by GMAT test takers (a slight change of scope in the question stem in comparison to what is discussed heavily in the passage)

[esledge]

Is this a regular trap you see by GMAT test takers (a slight change of scope in the question stem in comparison to what is discussed heavily in the passage)

Yes, I’d say so! Explain Discrepancy questions have three parts:
(1) Set-Up (What’s happening)
(2) Expectation (Normally this would mean…)
(3) Surprise (However….)
Where (2) and (3) are often opposites, or are at least different.

As test-takers, our job is to explain why (3) happens, but I have noticed some recurring wrong-answer themes.
Wrong: attempts to explain why (1) is happening in the first place
Wrong: provides yet another reason you should expect (2)
Wrong: something that makes (2) and (3) equally likely or unlikely to happen
Wrong: something that doesn’t necessarily affect (2) or (3) at all.

[AkhilS663]

I was confused as to why options D & E were discarded?

Option D: Cant we say they used silencers on guns for lengthened hunting sessions so no noise of gunshots was there. The whole point is option D is not strong enough to explain the discrepancy. if this wouldn't be EXCEPT question we would have discarded option D on this logic.

Option E: We don't know when the Highway was built but we know accidents increased since the introduction of the lengthened hunting session. Again if this wouldn't be EXCEPT question we would have discarded option E on this logic.

Can anyone please explain this?

[TiffanyB]

Hello AkhilS663,

My apologies for the delay on this response.

Let's start by getting grounded in your goal.

The problem asks you to explain a discrepancy. Specifically, there is a plan to reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by deer. The plan to achieve this is to lengthen hunting season, which will result in a reduction in the number of living deer to cause accidents.

This is also an EXCEPT question, so four answer choices should help to resolve the discrepancy. You're looking for the one answer choice that does not help to resolve the discrepancy.

I was confused as to why options D & E were discarded?


Option D: Cant we say they used silencers on guns for lengthened hunting sessions so no noise of gunshots was there. The whole point is option D is not strong enough to explain the discrepancy. if this wouldn't be EXCEPT question we would have discarded option D on this logic.

We cannot say that they used silencers, because the argument does not give us that information. It's easy to infer too far on critical reasoning problems, particularly by bringing in real world knowledge. Try to approach problems using only the information in the problem.

In this case, D does help to resolve the discrepancy in the argument. You would eliminate it because this is an EXCEPT

Option E: We don't know when the Highway was built but we know accidents increased since the introduction of the lengthened hunting session. Again if this wouldn't be EXCEPT question we would have discarded option E on this logic.

Can anyone please explain this?

This one is a little trickier. You are correct that they don't include specific dates. However, the language does provide clues regarding timing.

Hunting Season: In an effort to reduce the number of deer, and therefore decrease the number of automobile accidents caused by deer, the government lengthened the deer hunting season earlier this year. Surprisingly, the number of accidents caused by deer has increased substantially since the introduction of the longer hunting season.


I've bolded a couple of the clues in the argument. Given that the deer hunting season was lengthened "earlier this year," you can understand that a new year has not yet started. Also, the hunting season has not ended because the argument says that "the number of accidents caused by deer has increased...since the introduction of the longer hunting season."

When you say that something has been happening since something else, you're indicating that the action is still ongoing. For example: "I have been tired since I woke up" indicates that I'm still tired.

Although answer choice E is even more vague, simply stating " A new highway was recently built directly through the state’s largest forest, which is the primary habitat of the state’s deer population," you can still safely infer from this that it likely occurred while the recent hunting season was open.

However, if you're in doubt on this answer choice, simply compare (E) with your only other answer choice remaining, (C). when comparing these two, it's clear that E offers more help in resolving the discrepancy than C does. Eliminate E because it does help to resolve the discrepancy.