Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Aug 2014, 04:36

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 0

In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2010, 18:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

63% (01:56) correct 38% (01:24) wrong based on 8 sessions
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. It is believed that the tigers will only attack people from behind. So for the past few years many workers in the reserve have started wearing masks depicting a
human face on the back of their heads. While many area residents remain skeptical, no worker wearing one of these masks has yet been attacked by a tiger.

Which of the statements below, if true, would best support the argument of those who advocate the use of the mask?

(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
(C) No tigers have been spotted on the nature reserve in recent years.
(D) Many of the workers who wear the masks also sing while they work in order to frighten away any tigers in the area.
(E) The tigers have often been observed attacking small deer from in front rather than from behind.

I feel the answer should be "B" but the OA is different. It is already known that people are attacked by tigers. This in no way support the argument.

A simply states that NOT wearing the mask =>tigers will attack.
From this we cant deduce that Wearing masks=> tigers will not attack.

So,there is no new point in A..Right? Thanks in advance..
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1477
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 31

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2010, 18:32
ravitejapandiri wrote:
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. It is believed that the tigers will only attack people from behind. So for the past few years many workers in the reserve have started wearing masks depicting a
human face on the back of their heads. While many area residents remain skeptical, no worker wearing one of these masks has yet been attacked by a tiger.

Which of the statements below, if true, would best support the argument of those who advocate the use of the mask?

(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
(C) No tigers have been spotted on the nature reserve in recent years.
(D) Many of the workers who wear the masks also sing while they work in order to frighten away any tigers in the area.
(E) The tigers have often been observed attacking small deer from in front rather than from behind.

I feel the answer should be "B" but the OA is different. It is already known that people are attacked by tigers. This in no way support the argument.

A simply states that NOT wearing the mask =>tigers will attack.
From this we cant deduce that Wearing masks=> tigers will not attack.

So,there is no new point in A..Right? Thanks in advance..


"A" best supports the argument because because those who don't wear masks continue to get attacked. This strengthens the argument because it let's us know that there is not another explanation for the reduction in attacks. Other reasons for fewer attacks may be because of a declining population or perhaps the tigers have migrated elsewhere. We don't know. With A, the answer is telling us that the tigers are very much in existence and thus the masks are effective.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2010, 19:39
lagomez wrote:
ravitejapandiri wrote:
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. It is believed that the tigers will only attack people from behind. So for the past few years many workers in the reserve have started wearing masks depicting a
human face on the back of their heads. While many area residents remain skeptical, no worker wearing one of these masks has yet been attacked by a tiger.

Which of the statements below, if true, would best support the argument of those who advocate the use of the mask?

(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
(C) No tigers have been spotted on the nature reserve in recent years.
(D) Many of the workers who wear the masks also sing while they work in order to frighten away any tigers in the area.
(E) The tigers have often been observed attacking small deer from in front rather than from behind.

I feel the answer should be "B" but the OA is different. It is already known that people are attacked by tigers. This in no way support the argument.

A simply states that NOT wearing the mask =>tigers will attack.
From this we cant deduce that Wearing masks=> tigers will not attack.

So,there is no new point in A..Right? Thanks in advance..


"A" best supports the argument because because those who don't wear masks continue to get attacked. This strengthens the argument because it let's us know that there is not another explanation for the reduction in attacks. Other reasons for fewer attacks may be because of a declining population or perhaps the tigers have migrated elsewhere. We don't know. With A, the answer is telling us that the tigers are very much in existence and thus the masks are effective.



Thanks for the explanation but a small doubt !Why are we excluding option B.The only reason being the above argument is about a particular reserve or any other reason is there?Some insight please..
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 63 [1] , given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2010, 20:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.

Both are close, yes.

We are trying to find a fact which will encourage local residents to wear the mask.

A) Does not say that if you don't wear the mask, you will be attacked. But it does say that all those who were attacked were not wearing the mask. Also, A talks about the LOCAL nature reserve.

B) Talks about OTHER nature reserves where people wear SIMILAR masks, not necessarily depicting a human face. Also it does not say whether people who did not wear the masks were attacked or safe.

So A is a better option.
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1477
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 31

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2010, 20:30
ravitejapandiri wrote:
lagomez wrote:
ravitejapandiri wrote:
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. It is believed that the tigers will only attack people from behind. So for the past few years many workers in the reserve have started wearing masks depicting a
human face on the back of their heads. While many area residents remain skeptical, no worker wearing one of these masks has yet been attacked by a tiger.

Which of the statements below, if true, would best support the argument of those who advocate the use of the mask?

(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
(C) No tigers have been spotted on the nature reserve in recent years.
(D) Many of the workers who wear the masks also sing while they work in order to frighten away any tigers in the area.
(E) The tigers have often been observed attacking small deer from in front rather than from behind.

I feel the answer should be "B" but the OA is different. It is already known that people are attacked by tigers. This in no way support the argument.

A simply states that NOT wearing the mask =>tigers will attack.
From this we cant deduce that Wearing masks=> tigers will not attack.

So,there is no new point in A..Right? Thanks in advance..


"A" best supports the argument because because those who don't wear masks continue to get attacked. This strengthens the argument because it let's us know that there is not another explanation for the reduction in attacks. Other reasons for fewer attacks may be because of a declining population or perhaps the tigers have migrated elsewhere. We don't know. With A, the answer is telling us that the tigers are very much in existence and thus the masks are effective.



Thanks for the explanation but a small doubt !Why are we excluding option B.The only reason being the above argument is about a particular reserve or any other reason is there?Some insight please..


I would agree with the previous post in that A is better. I think the problem with "B" is that it introduces another reserve. A sticks to the reserve in question.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 788
Followers: 105

Kudos [?]: 216 [0], given: 33

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2010, 07:59
Answer should be A, as choice B is talking about the "Workers in other nature reserves" and we are not concerned about the workers of other nature reserves!
_________________

RC videos rc-through-videos-99566.html
CR videos cr-through-videos-99033.html
SC videos sc-through-videos-98340.html
Quant videos quant-through-videos-102525.html

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2010, 08:30
A & B are very close. However, they are different when it comes to using one to support the advocates of the mask.

Used POE to eliminate C, D & E. However, it boils down to picking the right one from A & B. A brings in more power to the advocates because it shows that unmasked people in the same environment (same park and same tigers) as the masked people are still been attacked.

(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.


Last edited by adishail on 21 Sep 2010, 12:08, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 30
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2010, 11:48
good question.
really got me confused.
another thing that goes in favor of A is, that in statement B it says, no person on other park was attacked RECENTLY, here the word recently is out of scope since the masks are being used since many years.
No attacks in recent time can be coz of any reason .not necessarily coz of masks. If it has said, no person in another reserve has been attacked who wore a mask. then that might have been the answer.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 443
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 112

Re: CR:Need clarification :( [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2010, 19:39
A..
.good question ...
Re: CR:Need clarification :(   [#permalink] 23 Sep 2010, 19:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic In Goshawk-Eurasian nature reserve 30 percent of the birds bagdbmba 8 27 Apr 2013, 02:45
2 The reserve bank of India examines macro-economic gmatcracker2010 22 05 Jun 2010, 01:10
Of 2,500 people who survived a first heart attack, those who noboru 7 03 Jun 2010, 04:06
People cannot devote themselves to study of natural joemama142000 12 04 Jan 2010, 16:44
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked spriya 9 08 Sep 2008, 18:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.