NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 23:18 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 23:18
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers.

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
ravitejapandiri
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 318 [18]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 26 Sep 2018, 12:27
5
Kudos
13
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:31) correct 35% (01:38) wrong based on 774 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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.


Show Spoiler
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..
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A

Originally posted by ravitejapandiri on 20 Sep 2010, 19:03.
Last edited by Bunuel on 26 Sep 2018, 12:27, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
User avatar
lagomez
VP
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1226
Own Kudos [?]: 518 [0]
Given Kudos: 31
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   20 Sep 2010, 19:32
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.
avatar
ravitejapandiri
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 318 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   20 Sep 2010, 20:39
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..
User avatar
siyer
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 186 [3]
Given Kudos: 25
 Q48  V39
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   20 Sep 2010, 21:01
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
(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.
User avatar
lagomez
VP
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1226
Own Kudos [?]: 518 [0]
Given Kudos: 31
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   20 Sep 2010, 21:30
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.
User avatar
kissthegmat
Retired Moderator
Joined: 21 May 2010
Status:<strong>I wish!</strong>
Posts: 700
Own Kudos [?]: 759 [0]
Given Kudos: 33
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   21 Sep 2010, 08:59
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!
User avatar
adishail
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 160 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 21 Sep 2010, 13:08
1
Bookmarks
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.

Originally posted by adishail on 21 Sep 2010, 09:30.
Last edited by adishail on 21 Sep 2010, 13:08, edited 1 time in total.
avatar
aman1213
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 66 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   21 Sep 2010, 12:48
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.
User avatar
B
SergeRobu
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2013
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: Moldova, Republic of
Schools: Olin '19 (I) Madison '19 (II) Carlson '19 (II)
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   04 Dec 2014, 01:48
1
Bookmarks
A is the best. The statement says that "no worker wearing one of these masks has yet been attacked by a tiger." so we have to demonstrate that in resent time in that natural reserve in India tigers generely attacked workers, and only those who didn't wear masks. In the case of answer B we don't know anything about workers who didn't wear masks, maybe there were no attacks at all.

Hope it helps :) (unfortunately my choice was B, but now I understand it was wrong)
avatar
sheolokesh
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   18 Jan 2015, 17:28
I would like to share my comments here... I know it might be unwelcomed, but its true.. If the OA were B, people who give the explanation would have stated their comments supporting B.. Honest fact.. Because in a similar kind of question, people have rejected option A kind of statement, stating "we are not concerned about people who do not wear masks. The conclusion states that wearing masks evade tiger attacks. So B is the right option.." OA seems to bend the thinking of people... Dont know what is going to be on the test day where the OA does not appear.. Will be a poker game depending upon luck?
avatar
DesiGmat
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 176
Own Kudos [?]: 225 [0]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   19 Jan 2015, 02:35
sheolokesh wrote:
I would like to share my comments here... I know it might be unwelcomed, but its true.. If the OA were B, people who give the explanation would have stated their comments supporting B.. Honest fact.. Because in a similar kind of question, people have rejected option A kind of statement, stating "we are not concerned about people who do not wear masks. The conclusion states that wearing masks evade tiger attacks. So B is the right option.." OA seems to bend the thinking of people... Dont know what is going to be on the test day where the OA does not appear.. Will be a poker game depending upon luck?



Hi sheolokesh,


I somewhat agree with what you have stated in your post. However, it's a subjective topic.
I think what other people have rejected or accepted is none of our business because this is a reasoning quetsion, and everybody has his/her own way to reason the problem.

Now to the argument mentioned.
I think it's pretty simple to eliminate options C, D and E.
The fight is between option A and B.

Both option A and B (in a way ) support the argument, but question asked us to pick the option that 'Best' support the argument.

option B: Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.

First of all, the situations/conditions can be different between the natural reserve under consideration and the other natural reserves.
Secondly, the use of adverb 'recently' gives a call to suspicion as we can say, the tiger might have attacked the workers in the past, but not in recent times.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
User avatar
Vineetk
AGSM Thread Master
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 713 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: Tuck '16 NUS Ivey Goizueta '14 Kelley '14 UBC AGSM
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   19 Jan 2015, 14:35
sheolokesh wrote:
I would like to share my comments here... I know it might be unwelcomed, but its true.. If the OA were B, people who give the explanation would have stated their comments supporting B.. Honest fact.. Because in a similar kind of question, people have rejected option A kind of statement, stating "we are not concerned about people who do not wear masks. The conclusion states that wearing masks evade tiger attacks. So B is the right option.." OA seems to bend the thinking of people... Dont know what is going to be on the test day where the OA does not appear.. Will be a poker game depending upon luck?


Its not about reasoning according to OA but about reasoning with logic to reach the answer. If you are not convinced with above explanations, you should ask for the help of experts in this forum. We all know that it's easy to eliminate 3 answer choices and we need to pick the right choice between the two. This will happen only by understanding what makes a particular answer choice correct and the other incorrect. There cannot be 2 correct answers but just 1.

I am no expert but will try to explain my logic
.
Coming to this question, between A&B, the word recently makes a huge statement.

A states that workers who do not wear mask were attacked recently. It is also given that workers who wear mask have not been attacked. This shows that mask is actually working because attacks are still happening on people who are not wearing it.

B states that workers who wear mask in other nature have not been attacked recently. So we know they have not been attacked recently but these workers who wear mask could have been attacked before by the tigers. We do not know that. Thus, it does not strengthen the argument.
avatar
sagarbuss
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 43
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 48
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   09 Aug 2015, 18:47
Request you not to write your queries/answers/opinions in question window. It prevents ppl from analysing the question. The whole purpose of GMAT Club forum goes wasted by doing so.
User avatar
P
mvictor
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2163
Own Kudos [?]: 1180 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   22 Feb 2016, 20:34
1
Kudos
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 went with A...
we need to strengthen the claim that wearing masks -> decreases the probability of being attacked.
A - says that many of those who do not wear - were attacked. looks good
B - other reserves - not interested. + other reserves - are there tigers at all? did the reserves had the same problem? too many IF's..
C - well..this actually weakens..
D - as well weakens, because it is not only the mask only.
E. weakens..it tells that tigers do not attack, and thus, masks should not be a problem.
User avatar
sowragu
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 105
Own Kudos [?]: 119 [0]
Given Kudos: 148
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   23 Feb 2016, 22:32
Quote:
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.


Superb question.

Any CR passage we should choose an answer choice which tell us that there are not alternate reason for the cause.
If we choose B, still we don't know whether this is the only reason that is wearing the mask protects them, or any other reason is there for tiger not attacking or tiger is not attacking any. We don't know
But choice A clearly states the same which supports the argument. It says people got attacked by tiger didn't wear a mask, means people who wear a mask are fine.
"Workers in other natural reserves" is not a good reason to eliminate B.
User avatar
B
law258
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Status:DONE!
Posts: 274
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 283
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   31 Oct 2016, 09:19
The reason A is correct over B is because we are talking about THIS nature preserve, not another. If you were to use that argument to try to counter the original claim, you would leave yourself open to the following statement: "Tigers could behave differently in that other nature preserve. There doesn't necessarily need to be a parallel between the two preserves as they are in two different places and therefore could potentially have different factors that contribute to the tigers' behavior."

Hope this helps :)
User avatar
G
harvard2019
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [0]
Given Kudos: 63
Location: United States (CA)
Schools: HBS '22 (S) Wharton '22 CBS '22 Sloan '22 Yale '22 (WL) Booth '22 Ross '22 Darden '22 (S) LBS '22 (S) Tepper '22 (S) Instead Sept 20 Intake (A$)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V40
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   26 Sep 2018, 15:17
(A) Many workers in the nature reserve who do not wear the masks have been attacked recently by tigers.
Makes sense. Since we are seeing lot of attacks on non-mask people, it strengthens the case that mask is helping pushing off these predators.


(B) Workers in other nature reserves who wear similar masks have not been attacked recently by tigers.
Do we know about other reserves. Also, it adds "recently". That means if we are actually talking about same masks then probably this is a weakener coz it atleast didnt help before.

(C) No tigers have been spotted on the nature reserve in recent years.
Okay but doesnt help us strengthen.

(D) Many of the workers who wear the masks also sing while they work in order to frighten away any tigers in the area.
Possible weakener. What if it was singing which was weakening lions.

(E) The tigers have often been observed attacking small deer from in front rather than from behind.
Attacks on humans could be different than attack on deers.

Answer A
avatar
B
VBudhew
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2020
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 35
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2021, 03:22
Isnt A is trying to contradict the premise already given in the last line of the argument ????
User avatar
L
Kushchokhani
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2020
Status:Admitted to IIM Shillong (PGPEx 2023-24)
Affiliations: CFA Institute; ICAI; BCAS
Posts: 588
Own Kudos [?]: 554 [0]
Given Kudos: 694
Location: India
WE 2: EA to CFO (Consumer Products)
GPA: 3.78
WE:Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Send PM
Reviews Badge CAT Tests Forum Quiz Mode
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   27 Jul 2022, 23:56
Wearing mask does not attack people. We need to strengthen the argument. It need not MUST BE TRUE.
Not wearing mask attacks people. This may indicate that it is advisable to wear a mask to avoid attack. Hence, this strengthens the argument. Keep A.
The argument starts with tiger attack in a particular nature reserve. We do not know whether the other nature reserve has or not the tigers in the first place. Hence, B is wrong.
If not tigers have been spotted in recent years, there is no point to wear a mask. C is out.
If mask wearers also sing, we do not know whether tigers are frightened away because of wearing mask or singing. Hence, D is out.
Attacking deer is not comparable to attacking humans. Hence, E is out.
Answer is A.
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17227
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink] New post   06 Sep 2023, 01:46
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked by tigers. [#permalink]
06 Sep 2023, 01:46
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions