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.