Tanchat wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
r19 wrote:
even after reading other's reasoning for E, still not convinced how option E is wrong? Please explain
Quote:
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
The experts' conclusion is "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". Choice (E) certainly tells us that zoo employees are
exposed to the animals in their care and thus susceptible to developing allergies, but it does not give us any reason to 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
substantially more than 30%. Choice (E) simply gives us one reason why zoo employees might develop animal-induced allergies.
Quote:
A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
Choice (A), on the other hand, implies that the percentage of zoo employees with animal-induced allergies would be higher if those employees who developed serious animal-induced allergies were likely to continue working as zoo employees rather than switching occupations, supporting the experts' conclusion.
But in Choice (E), I can also interpret that even zoo employees were protective gear, they develop an animal-induced allergy up about 30%. What if they don't wear... it will be more than 30%+++.
Also, we have never known that how many zoo employees per zoo or how many zoo employees already switched to other occupation. How can we compare that (A) or (E) is the most strengthen to conclusion?
Let's start with (E):
Quote:
(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
You're correct that (E) suggests zoo employees
sometimes wear protective gear. So does this mean that if they didn't wear protective gear, more of them would get allergies?
Well, to reach that conclusion, we'd need to
assume that protective gear prevents people from developing allergies in the first place. And nothing in the passage supports this assumption. So we can't conclude that the protective gear explains why the general public gets substantially more animal-induced allergies. For that reason, (E) is incorrect.
And now here's (A):
Quote:
(A) A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
You're absolutely right that we have no idea how many employees there are per zoo. Nor do we know the exact number or percentage of zoo employees that have switched occupations. So does (A) really support the experts' conclusion?
Well, all we need is a reason why the general population has a substantially higher
percentage of people with animal-induced allergies. And if zoo employees who develop these allergies are "very likely to switch to some other occupation," that would have a big effect on the overall percentage of zoo employees who have allergies. In other words, if those zoo employees who develop allergies are "very likely" to leave, that could significantly decrease the overall
percentage with animal-induced allergies, even if we don't know the exact
number who left. For that reason, (A) is correct.
I hope that helps!
close
06 Jul 2022, 15:19
