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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Tigers

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 15 times
by schumi_gmat » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:38 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

I was confused between OA and B but chose B.
can anyone explain how to apply the CR bible strategy to this question?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pmFollowed by: 614 members
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
GMAT Score:800

Re: Tigers

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:42 pm
schumi_gmat 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 was confused between OA and B but chose B.
can anyone explain how to apply the CR bible strategy to this question?
It's extremely useful to be able to recognize common argument types on the GMAT. One of the most common (perhaps THE most common) is causation. We can summarize this entire argument as:

"The reason why tigers aren't attacking the workers is due to the masks."

or

"The masks are preventing tiger attacks."

To support a causation argument, we generally do one of two things:

(1) remove an alternative explanation; or
(2) provide additional evidence linking the purported cause and effect.

Choice (A) removes an alternative explanation. It's possible that the reason for reduced attacks is because the tigers aren't attacking anyone at all. However, if the tigers are still attacking non-mask wearing workers, then we don't have to worry about that possibility.

Actually, (A) reminds me of an old joke:

Two kids, Bobby and Freddy, are sitting in a classroom and Bobby is confused because Freddy is wearing a purple bag on his head. When Bobby asked Freddy why, Freddy replied "it keeps the elephants away". Bobby asked how Freddy knows that and Freddy says "well, you don't see any elephants around, do you?"

(Hey, I didn't say it was a particularly funny old joke.)

Relating (A) to our joke, it's the equivalent of "kids in other classrooms who aren't wearing purple bags on their heads are getting trampled by elephants".

Choice (B) doesn't strengthen because it doesn't help us determine if the masks themselves are making any difference. For all we know, tigers everywhere are on strike and are just lying on the couch watching football and talk shows.

Relating (B) to our joke, it's the equivalent of "No elephants are bothering other kids wearing purple bags on their heads."
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:28 pm
hey Stuart,,

amazing explanation,,,

and btw tat joke.... was funny!!!...:)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:18 am
Thanked: 5 times
GMAT Score:610

by Jatinder » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:30 pm
Completely agreed with A but still lil problem in eliminating B

i thought that if the tiger attacking is not happening in other nature reserves also then it also removes the alternate explanation: There is not something peculiar to the 1st nature reserve which is causing tigers not to attack.

Pls explain what is wrong in my thought process
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3225
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pmFollowed by: 614 members
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 1710 times
GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:53 pm
Jatinder wrote:Completely agreed with A but still lil problem in eliminating B

i thought that if the tiger attacking is not happening in other nature reserves also then it also removes the alternate explanation: There is not something peculiar to the 1st nature reserve which is causing tigers not to attack.

Pls explain what is wrong in my thought process
The other reserve has the same conditions, at least as far as we know - the people there wearing masks aren't getting attacked.

However, we still don't know if it's because of the masks. We still don't know if anyone is getting attacked by tigers. Just like all those kids wearing purple bags on their heads don't make us think that the purple bags are actually keeping away the elephants, we have no clue if it's the masks that are keeping away the tigers.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:21 am

by mbaapplicant2008 » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:00 pm
Thank you, Stuart
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:12 pm
yes it shuld be A

in B it is never said that tigers were attacking in other reserves also..
they may not be doing so in other reserves.. so we cannot apply condition of one scenario to other...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pmFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 18 times

OG question but problematic

by tanviet » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:24 am
according to CR bible, we can strengthen the casation by

a, show that if there is no cause, no effect exists

b, show that if there is the cause, effect exists.

A is a,

B is b

this question is wrong, I think so. pls, help
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pmFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 18 times

SOLUTION TO CR,Pls, contribute.

by tanviet » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:19 am
A is correct

B is wrong because B repeat evidence. this is very attractive but wrong.

the strengthener is

1, new information
2,increase belief or doubt in conclusion(see Kaplan book)
3,in context of evidence(see "critical reasoning 101")
4, do not repeat evidence or contradict evidence

answer increase belief or doubt but out of context of evidence is attractive but wrong

anwer repeat evidence or contradict evidence is attractive but wrong

I wish all of you contribute to SOLUTION TO CR
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1