causal reasoning - Kaplan verbal

[agarwalva]

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

[ice_rush]

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.

[confuse mind]

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.

[Bill@VeritasPrep]

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.