It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 17:33

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 59 [3], given: 0

In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 19:03
3
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

71% (01:15) correct 29% (01:26) wrong based on 280 sessions

### HideShow 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.

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

Kudos [?]: 59 [3], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1467

Kudos [?]: 307 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 307 [0], given: 31

Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2010
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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..

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 171

Kudos [?]: 104 [2], given: 25

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2010, 21:01
2
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!!!

Kudos [?]: 104 [2], given: 25

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1467

Kudos [?]: 307 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 307 [0], given: 31

Retired Moderator
Status: I wish!
Joined: 21 May 2010
Posts: 784

Kudos [?]: 484 [0], given: 33

### Show Tags

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!
_________________

http://drambedkarbooks.com/

Kudos [?]: 484 [0], given: 33

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 327

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2010, 09:30
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, 13:08, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 416

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 112

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 20:39
A..
.good question ...

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 112

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2013
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 20

Location: Moldova, Republic of
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V28
GPA: 3.62
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2014, 01:48
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)

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 20

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 20

Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 20

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2013
Posts: 253

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 79

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 03-02-2015
GPA: 3.88
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 79

Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 269 [0], given: 31

Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 269 [0], given: 31

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 106

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 48

Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 48

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2680

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 200

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 20:34
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.

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 200

Manager
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 148

Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 148

Senior Manager
Status: DONE!
Joined: 05 Sep 2016
Posts: 408

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 283

Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 283

Re: In a nature reserve in India, people are sometimes attacked   [#permalink] 31 Oct 2016, 09:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by