Study questions platform-wide or filter by specific tests with correct answers revealed.
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:
- Deer feed at forest edges.
- New roads create new forest edges.
- 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.
The 'Cohabitation' in the French political system refers to:
Cohabitation occurs when the President and the Prime Minister belong to opposing political parties.
Sign in to join the conversation and share your thoughts.
Log In to Comment