GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 23 May 2018, 21:18

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

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 146
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2012, 01:45
IMO A

First thout C but A should be answer as ppl from zoo leave their % is not real representetive.
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 300
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Mar 2012, 00:22
...........straight A rest options are not that strong
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Intern
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 38
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 08:34
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

Keep your eyes on the prize: 750

Intern
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 38
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 08:35
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

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3406
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 09:32
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: 12
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Yale '16, YLP '16 (M)
GPA: 3.4
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Feb 2013, 14:27
1
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
Joined: 09 Apr 2013
Posts: 136
Location: India
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consulting)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Nov 2013, 02:40
There is no other choice other than A that strengthens the expert's position.
_________________

+1 KUDOS is the best way to say thanks

"Pay attention to every detail"

Manager
Status: folding sleeves up
Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 149
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 530 Q39 V23
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Computer Hardware)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jan 2014, 10:02
Experts need more help here with choice E. Pet owners also do not wear mask and hence more risk. Thus increasing cases.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 335
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jan 2014, 09:10
1
KUDOS

FACT 1 ......In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies.

Based on this logic it is derived that members of the general population(other than those already sampled-- ie zoo workers) who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals --------WILL HAVE logically about 30% with allergies.........

The % will go above 30% only if the number of those infected increases ie (30+N)/ (100+N)......WHERE N = ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF INFECTED PERSONS..........THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THE % CAN GO UP.....IF WE FOLLOW LOGIC IN FACT 1 AND ITS DERIVATIONS..............

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 184
Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jan 2014, 10:42
6
KUDOS
tuanquang269 wrote:
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.

The way to approach a strengthen question is to first understand the argument and the conclusion and if any answer choice increases our belief in the conclusion that choice will be the correct answer.
Let us look at this question.

Conclusion-
"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."
This conclusion is based on the fact that People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, some of them quite serious.
Now why would the set of people in the general population who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals have more animal induced allergies that the people in zoo.
Why would not the people in zoo be more prone to allergies.

Few points that come to mind are
- Maybe people at zoo take more precaution that the general population.
- Maybe people have shifted from zoo to the general population and hence

If any of the answer choices come down to the above points that we have already thought of then we have hit the bulls eye.

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. - Bingo thats what we thought
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home - Unrelated , not related to the general public
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. - This actually weakens the 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. - Again weakens the conclusion
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care - again weakens the conclusion , according to this zoo employees are more prone than the general public.

Hopefully my above analysis helps
Kudos me if you like the post !!!!
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 345
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Feb 2014, 19:48
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: 161
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Feb 2014, 06:55
+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: 14
GMAT Date: 02-14-2014
GPA: 2.3
WE: Other (Internet and New Media)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Feb 2014, 22:20
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?
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 71
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Apr 2014, 05:36
mydreammba wrote:
Here in E experts say "the % of people induced with allergies is more than 30%" that itself suggests that people might not have used any protective cover which suggests strongest conclusion of experts argument, if the people have used protective cover then the % of people induced with allergies might have decreased.

Hope this helps

+1 Kudos if you have liked the explanation

Hi,
I agree that if the zoo workers wear protective gears, then 30% itself is a bigger no. But, in the option, 'seldom' is used which clearly indicates that the zoo workers wear these protective gears rarely and that's why the no of animal induced allergies could be this large. Also, if the zoo workers wear these gears and the general population don't, then the general population will be more prone to these allergies than the zoo workers.
This also explains that how the percentage for the general population would be greater.
Also option (a) says that, if say there is a general population of 200 and out of 200, say 100 are zoo workers. And say, 70 people from the past had these allergies. Out of 70, 40 switched their occupation. Thus, we had 60 zoo workers, out of whom 30 were affected with these allergies. So, we had 40 affected workers who are now a part of the general population and thus, the total general population is now 140 and 60 zoo workers. Now, the percentage of general population with these allergies is 40/140 which is approx 28% and it is 50 % for the zoo workers. This, therefore, doesnot clearly explains how the switch could actually boost the nos.
Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 168
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Apr 2014, 07:43
[quote="tuanquang269"]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. - its not the best one. But its best among others
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home - Weakens saying Zoo employee is also one among general population to keep the Pet animals so the percent of general population will be down
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. - Weakens -Says the proportion of general population to Zoo employees whose exposure to animals is very less
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 says pets causes animal allergy in less
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care. - Out of scope

Took 2.21 to solve

Kudos if it helped

Regards,
Swami
Current Student
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 289
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GMAT 2: 700 Q42 V44
GMAT 3: 680 Q44 V39
GMAT 4: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.7
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 09:52
1
KUDOS
Hi guys,

I get your point, but I wonder how you all are so positive about this question. To be honest, I think it's rather weak.

It is true, that (A) is the only one that strengthens the argument at all, but please keep in mind that experts assume that the general population will have substantially more than 30%. Comparing all people working at zoos globally, even if all change jobs they would not influence the percentage of people infected with any allergy substantially. Another important point is that allergies actually cannot be transferred between humans. I mean, I get your points, and here (A) is the only possible answer, but I would have still expected an answer choice that made much more sense - e.g. "While zoo-employees wear protection, people at home don't". This would explain the rather important notion of substantially higher, included in the argument.

All the best!
_________________

Thank you very much for reading this post till the end! Kudos?

Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 910
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 22:25
Source : GMATPrep Mock 3

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.
-> Correct as this would stop the increase of percentages of animal induced allergies to develop so we can conclude if member of general population, if he or she spends more time with animal, will have more than 30% of animal induced allergies.

B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
This option suggests that the members of the general population would have less than 30% if 30% of zoo officials have animal induced allergies.

C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
This option doesn't add any value to suggest that member of general population will have more than 30% of animal induced allergies.

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 the argument

E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
As per this option, the zoo officials would have more animal induced allergies.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1981
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Oct 2015, 23:11
A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
Strengthens . Zoo employees with serious animal- induced allergy leave the job . Hence , aren't included in the 30 percent.
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
Slight weakner , we can conclude that zoo employees are exposed to animals for a major part of the day.
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
Weakner
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
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
Weakens . If the statement was that zoo employees always wear protective gear , then it could have worked as a strengthener .

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Intern
Joined: 27 Jun 2014
Posts: 1
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: IESE '20
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2016, 10:42
1
KUDOS
A vs E for me.

I would say A is too much of a stretch because we do not know what the existing percentage of general population who have animal induced allergies is. So saying allergy induced zookeepers find a different profession (thereby becoming a part of the general population) will reduce the percentage of zookeepers with animal induced allergy and increase the percentage of general population with animal induced allergies. But still, we do not know the statistics about the population - what is the population of the zookeepers, what is the strength of the general population - with which we can judge whether the percentage is greater than x (here, 30) or less than it.

But E on the other hand says the zookeepers seldom wear protective equipment. This means the choice is trying to say that (at least) one of the causes of animal induced allergies is handling animals without wearing protective equipment. 'Seldom' means there are times when the zookeepers wear the protective equipment. Given this scenario, the percentage of zookeepers with animal induced allergy is 30%. It is a universal fact (for all practical purposes) that people (general population) who have domesticated pets or interact with stray animals do not wear protective equipment; as opposed to zookeepers wearing it 'seldom'. This naturally increases the possibilities of animal induced allergies in the general population to greater than the percentage in zookeepers who wear protective equipment 'sometimes'. So most probably greater than 30%.

So E.
Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 119
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.99
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Dec 2016, 13:54
Difficult question.

To me the key was to realize that we are comparing A:current employees in major zoos to B:members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals.

If we were to compare current employees in major zoos with members of the general population, then of course A wouldn't be true as there is no reason why would greater percentage of general population develop animal-induced allergies. But we are interested only in that part of general population which has the same exposure to animals as do workers in zoo. So if two samples are the same and there is only one factor affecting them (exposure to animals) then the percentage of people with allergies should be about the same unless there are other factors at play. And first answer certainly makes members of group B more likely to have an allergy.

Therefore A.
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals   [#permalink] 06 Dec 2016, 13:54

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 58 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by