It is currently 25 Feb 2018, 11:53

### 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

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 243
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2018, 10:23
LakerFan24 wrote:
Pretty straightforward...

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?

** You know what I'm thinking is odd here? If 30% of people working at zoos get animal-induced allergies, how on earth is the general population much more affected? Who can spend more time with animals than people whose job it is to literally be in their presence all day??

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
>> Bingo. If former employees are now part of the general population, no wonder the % is much higher than 30. You get the 30 from the former employees as well as others that weren't employees, just really into their pets lol

B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home
>> OPPOSITE. we want to prove that there's a higher % in the general population than zoo employees.

C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.
>> OPPOSITE. we want to prove that there's a higher % in the general population than zoo employees.

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.
>> OPPOSITE. we want to prove that there's a higher % in the general population than zoo employees.

E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
>> OUT OF FOCUS. Doesn't address general population at all.

Thanks LakerFan24 for the explanation!

Indeed, if the percentage of zoo employees with allergies is 30% AFTER the employees with serious allergies quit and find other jobs, then that percentage would be even higher if those with serious allergies had not quit.

This data suggests that, in general, MORE than 30% of those in close contact with animals would have animal-induced allergies.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Posts: 6
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2018, 16:01
I have gone through the comments for explanations. I have a doubt. the general population with allergies will exceed 30% if the existing percentage is 30%. but we do not have any information about it in the question. so how do we pick A?
Please let me know if i'm missing something.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 243
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2018, 19:26
sindhugh wrote:
I have gone through the comments for explanations. I have a doubt. the general population with allergies will exceed 30% if the existing percentage is 30%. but we do not have any information about it in the question. so how do we pick A?
Please let me know if i'm missing something.

True, we do not have information about the general population. The author is using survey data from one group (zoo workers) to draw a conclusion about members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals. Notice that the author is not talking about the ENTIRE general population. Rather, the author is only concerned with those who have spent as much time with animals as have zoo workers.

So if 30% of zoo workers have the allergies, then we might expect 30% of ALL people in close contact with animals to have the allergies. But notice that the passage does not say that 30% of zoo workers DEVELOPED allergies. Instead, the passage, says that 30% of those surveyed HAD the allergies.

Choice (A) tells us that those workers who develop serious allergies will quit their jobs at the zoo, so those people would not be included in the survey. If those people had not quit, then the percentage might have been substantially higher than 30%. In other words, maybe 40% of zoo workers DEVELOP the allergies. But since those with serious allergies end up quitting, the percentage of those surveyed with the allergies is only 30%.

This suggests that the 30% figure is an underestimate. If nobody had quit, the figure would have been higher. Projecting this data to ALL people in close-contact with animals, we would expect MORE than 30% to develop the allergies.

I hope that helps!
_________________
Re: People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals   [#permalink] 12 Feb 2018, 19:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 63 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.