BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

causal reasoning - Kaplan verbal

Expert replies
by agarwalva » Tue May 08, 2012 3:07 pm
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.

OA A

My reasoning
Cause --> Effect
masks -> no attack
IMO B. As per the option b
cause -->effect.. in other region

Please explain
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ice_rush » Tue May 08, 2012 5:00 pm
Yes, (B) is pretty close, but then we don't know whether wearing masks is the only reason that people in other nature reserves have not been attacked? It could be that that nature reserve has a lot of buffaloes and maybe tigers prefer feeding on buffaloes as opposed to humans.


hope this helps.
Join the discussion

by confuse mind » Tue May 08, 2012 5:18 pm
I also went with B :(
It strengthens by further exemplifying that when cause(mask) is there, effect(no attck) is also there. The only problem that I see with B is - OTHER REGIONS.

The whole argument is about a natural reserve in India and something happening in other region has no bearing on the same.

A is a defender. When cause(mask) is not there, effect(no attack) is also not there since [(no cause) -> effect] is a standard weakening statement.
Join the discussion

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Tue May 08, 2012 6:42 pm
I think ice_rush explained it well. Introducing evidence from other nature reserves is out of scope of the initial stimulus (which is about this single nature reserve in India). As a result, it may well introduce variables (like buffaloes!) that aren't present in the reserve with which we are concerned. The logic is as follows:

person is facing tiger--->tiger will not attack (contrapositive: tiger attacked--->person was not facing mask)

People wearing masks (which give the impression of facing the tiger) have not been attacked.

A: People not wearing masks have been attacked, which fits the contrapositive.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test
Join the discussion