Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 12 Jul 2014, 23:09

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 46
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: -8 [2] , given: 17

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2013, 07:34
2
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

54% (02:24) correct 45% (01:55) wrong based on 111 sessions
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, some of them quite serious. In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies. Based on this sample, experts conclude that among members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals, the percentage with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the experts’ conclusion?

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal induced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos.
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Keep your eyes on the prize: 750

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 46
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: -8 [0], given: 17

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2013, 07:35
About the Q stem:
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the experts’ conclusion?

Is this weakening question?
_________________

Keep your eyes on the prize: 750

Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2289
Followers: 230

Kudos [?]: 1973 [0], given: 669

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink] New post 25 Feb 2013, 08:32
Expert's post
This one is tricky.

regarding the statement is a strenghten question.

Whic one of the answer choices support at the best the fact that "the percentage with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more. "

A fits the bill perfect: if the employee changes work, this confirm the hypothesis.
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition

TOEFL iBT
Best resources to tackle each section of the TOEFL iBT

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Yale '16, YLP '16 (M)
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [2] , given: 23

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink] New post 27 Feb 2013, 13:27
2
This post received
KUDOS
This one is indeed tricky. I selected A option just because I definitely eliminated the last four options.

B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
If the zoo employee keeps more pets at home then he should be more prone to the allergies.

C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
If the percentage of people in the general population whose exposure to animals is high, is low then this weakens the conclusion. Because the conclusion clearly states that: the percentage with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more.

D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal induced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos.
Again if pet animals are less likely to cause animal induced allergies , then this clearly weakens the conclusion.

E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
Clearly weakens the conclusion because if they do not wear protective gear, then they are at a higher risk compared to the general population.

-------------------------
+1 if this helped you!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 182
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, International Business
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 5

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink] New post 06 Feb 2014, 18:48
Conclusion: the percentage with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more.

Reasoning: percentage of current employees of zoo with severe allergies < percentage of people in general with severe allergies. The main claim is based on a sample. If the sample were strengthened in any way - i.e. more descriptive data for either employees or people - the answer is correct. If the answer choice is neutral or even weakens the conclusion, it is the wrong answer.

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. OK - At first, I was skeptical. How did it tie to the main claim? If zoo employees with allergies switched jobs, then there would be more employees without allergies. Thus, the conclusion is strengthened that the sample of zoo workers does not describe the general population or that the general population with allergies is greater than 30%.

B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home Neutral. There is no basis for the comparison.

C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. Neutral. This statement has been satisfied in the stimulus, "who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact." Perhaps it is even a trap for some because it reads so similar to the argument.

D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal induced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos. Weakens or Neutral. Same reasoning as C

E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care. Weaken. If zoo employees don't wear gloves, then they have more exposure. If there's more exposure, it likely disqualifies the supporting claim "who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact."

IMO A
_________________

A little kudos never hurt anyone. :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2013
Posts: 173
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 56

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink] New post 07 Feb 2014, 05:55
+1 A.

To support the conclusion that general population has 30 or more than 30% animal induced allergies, somehow the percentage of general population that are/were in close contact with animals must be high.

Lets say there are 1000 employees in zoo and 300 got allergies. and general population is 100000. To make the conclusion hold, the assumption must be At least 30000 MUST be/have been in close contact with animals.

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
This means zoo employees who develop serious animal-induced allergy will not stay as zoo employee, employee turnover is very high. total employees who quit is > 30% general population CORRECT. Jeez this must be one popular zoo for employees who join and then quit! Anyway only this option seems to support the expert conclusion.
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
Same zoo employee keeping animal pets may at most increase risk of allergy in his/her house
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
This in fact contradicts the assumption of conclusion.
D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal induced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos.
This against contradicts the assumption.
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
This choice does not add much information about general population.
_________________

Click on Kudos if you liked the post!

Practice makes Perfect.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 24
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
GMAT Date: 02-14-2014
GPA: 2.3
WE: Other (Internet and New Media)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink] New post 09 Feb 2014, 21:20
mejia401 wrote:
Conclusion: the percentage with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more.

Reasoning: percentage of current employees of zoo with severe allergies < percentage of people in general with severe allergies. The main claim is based on a sample. If the sample were strengthened in any way - i.e. more descriptive data for either employees or people - the answer is correct. If the answer choice is neutral or even weakens the conclusion, it is the wrong answer.

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. OK - At first, I was skeptical. How did it tie to the main claim? If zoo employees with allergies switched jobs, then there would be more employees without allergies. Thus, the conclusion is strengthened that the sample of zoo workers does not describe the general population or that the general population with allergies is greater than 30%.

B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home Neutral. There is no basis for the comparison.

C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. Neutral. This statement has been satisfied in the stimulus, "who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact." Perhaps it is even a trap for some because it reads so similar to the argument.

D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal induced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos. Weakens or Neutral. Same reasoning as C

E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care. Weaken. If zoo employees don't wear gloves, then they have more exposure. If there's more exposure, it likely disqualifies the supporting claim "who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact."

IMO A


Isn't C stating the fact mentioned in the argument? The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. That means the percentage of general population who has severe allergies is greater than the zoo population. Which supports the claim made by the author.
Can you please elaborate why A is right?
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals   [#permalink] 09 Feb 2014, 21:20
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals priyankur_saha@ml.com 11 19 May 2009, 08:03
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals mymba99 7 28 Apr 2008, 12:41
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals singh_amit19 4 29 Sep 2007, 22:45
2 People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals ajisha 13 09 Aug 2007, 09:16
Experts publish their posts in the topic People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals freshlily 10 11 May 2006, 20:54
Display posts from previous: Sort by

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.