If $1$ USD $= 0.93$ peso, then $1$ peso $= \dfrac{1}{0.93} \approx 1.075$ USD.

If $1$ USD $= 32.08$ shillings, then $1$ shilling $= \dfrac{1}{32.08} \approx 0.031$ USD.

Quantity A $\approx 1.075$ USD > Quantity B $\approx 0.031$ USD.

Quantity A is greater.

This is a critical reasoning assumption question. The argument concludes that more deer will be hit by cars once the housing is occupied. We must find what the argument must silently assume for its conclusion to hold.

The argument’s logic chain:

1. Deer feed at forest edges.
2. New roads create new forest edges.
3. Therefore, deer will gather near roads → more deer-vehicle collisions.

For this conclusion to be possible, there must still be deer in the forest. If the development destroyed so much forest that the deer population collapsed or disappeared, there would be no deer left to collide with cars. The argument must assume that enough forest survives to sustain a substantial deer population — i.e., Option D.

• A — About commercial vehicles; the argument concerns cars from residents, not commercial traffic. Distractor.
• B — Compares road edges to house edges; the argument only requires deer near roads, not near houses.
• C — Past collision numbers are irrelevant; the argument is about a future increase, not about whether the prior baseline was low or high.

Correct Answer: D. Without a surviving deer population, the conclusion about increased collisions becomes impossible.

Increasing the selling price directly improves the gross profit margin. Offering more cash discounts might seem like it helps, but if the turnover *decreased* (meaning the ratio of Credit Sales/Receivables fell or Days increased), it suggests credit customers are taking longer to pay or the price hike slowed down collections.

Strong electrolytes dissociate completely. KI is an ionic salt → strong electrolyte. Acetic acid, NH₄OH, H₂CO₃ are weak electrolytes.