It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 04:08

### 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
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 09:03
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:58) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 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 animalinduced 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.

_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 160

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 09:22
IMO it could be B.

A : Is not convincing and seems irrelevant;
B: If A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home, then it could be that the percentage of general population with allergies could be more since that population could have the zoo employees as well as others;
C: This may result in the opposite: smaller than 30 percent;
D: Weakens the conclusion to some extent;
E: Doesnt strengthen the conclusion.

I was debating between B and C but I would go with B.
what is the OA and would appreciate alternate explanations.
Thanks

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 11:00
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. -- Ans. If employees switch job then clearly their %age as general public will increase.
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home --- OOS.. I mean how does keeping more pets matters to general public...
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. --- clearly contradicts what we wanna prove.
D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animalinduced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos. --- weakens argument
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care. --- "seldom"... OOS

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 12:06
IMO it should b E...This argument has an analogy flaw...
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 12:08

_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 317

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 18:22
Clear A for me . I am not able to understand explanation for E. Argument never says that any one who wears protective gears will not develop animal-induced allergies.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 14

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 20:59
IMO A

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 -->it means that: zoos only contain their current employees (rate of allergies is 30%) , but the whole population contains not only temporary employees but also prior employees (who have switched to other jobs) of the zoos, so the rate of allergies in the whole population must be higher
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home -->no influence
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small -->weaken
D. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animalinduced allergy than exposure to many of the animals kept in zoos -->out of scope
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care -->irrelevant

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 21:48
Minheequang wrote:
IMO A

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation -->it means that: zoos only contain their current employees (rate of allergies is 30%) , but the whole population contains not only temporary employees but also prior employees (who have switched to other jobs) of the zoos, so the rate of allergies in the whole population must be higher

Nice reasoning but I think there is a flaw in your logic. Please correct me if I am wrong.

current employee = 30% of total Zoo employees NOT 30% of total population

when you say "the whole population contains not only temporary employees but also prior employees" and sum of infected employees represents more than 30% of TOTAL POPULATION, how you've got the link between zoo employees and total population?
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 637 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 22:31
priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
Minheequang wrote:
IMO A

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation -->it means that: zoos only contain their current employees (rate of allergies is 30%) , but the whole population contains not only temporary employees but also prior employees (who have switched to other jobs) of the zoos, so the rate of allergies in the whole population must be higher

Nice reasoning but I think there is a flaw in your logic. Please correct me if I am wrong.

current employee = 30% of total Zoo employees NOT 30% of total population

when you say "the whole population contains not only temporary employees but also prior employees" and sum of infected employees represents more than 30% of TOTAL POPULATION, how you've got the link between zoo employees and total population?

Sorry for error typing:
general population = people who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals + prior zoos employees

Current employees --> 30% rate of allergies
General Population = 30% rate of allergies(of people who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals) + 100% rate of allergies (of prior zoo employees who developed allergies) > 30% rate of allergies

for exp: 3 of 10 from general population have allergies, plus 2 prior employees (who have developed allergies) --> 5 of 12 have allergies >30%

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 280

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 May 2009, 23:03

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 255

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 May 2009, 09:39
Sorry guys...disnt read the question properly. ..A is the best choice.....
_________________

Choose Life

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Location: nj

### Show Tags

20 May 2009, 13:34
A , imo

B just increses the time spen with animals. we've to look for a choice which can answer for the increased alergic population and A does that.

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: allergies   [#permalink] 20 May 2009, 13:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by