People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 19 Jan 2017, 21:16

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

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

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

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 07:34
2
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (02:15) correct 38% (01:50) wrong based on 205 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 46
Followers: 1

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

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 07:35
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

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3089
Followers: 785

Kudos [?]: 6525 [0], given: 1012

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 08:32
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.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Yale '16, YLP '16 (M)
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [2] , given: 23

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2013, 13:27
2
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!
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 365
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 299 [0], given: 45

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2013
Posts: 173
Followers: 1

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

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
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.
_________________

Click on Kudos if you liked the post!

Practice makes Perfect.

Intern
Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 19
GMAT Date: 02-14-2014
GPA: 2.3
WE: Other (Internet and New Media)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
16 People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals 10 25 Jul 2012, 19:38
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals 11 19 May 2009, 08:03
3 People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals 10 28 Apr 2008, 12:41
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals 4 29 Sep 2007, 22:45
12 People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals 16 09 Aug 2007, 09:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by