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

Redeem

causal reasoning - Kaplan verbal

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: New york
Thanked: 9 times

causal reasoning - Kaplan verbal

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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

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.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

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.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

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
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1