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

we can't assume that human beings i.e. zoo workers can transmit "animal-induced allergies"

A is the correct answer in my opinion and you are right, we can't assume that they transmit animal-induced allergies after changing jobs.
When a zoo worker leaves the zoo, he becomes part of the population that is referred to as "general public", basically anyone who is currently not working as a zoo worker. As over the years many such zoo workers would have switched jobs, the percent of general public with animal exposure and animal-induced allergies would have increased.


hope this makes sense.

cheers -

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. if zoo employee transfer to other profession then they would be counted in general population and hence would increase the percentage
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home does n't impact conclusion that general public will have higher percentage of allergy
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. this actually weaken the conclusion. If level of exposure is low so would be percentage of people having allergy
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 conclusion
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care. weaken the conclusion

A.

A. If they change professions then it is very possible that 30% reflects a lower number of people than were actually affected by animal induced allergies.
B. B weakens the conclusion so wrong
C. Weakens
D. Weakens
E. Does not strengthen.

Hence A

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 !!!!

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

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!

A. A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.( RIGHT ANSWER : A zoo employee who switches to other occupation becomes a member of the general population who has spent large amount of time with animals but he still retains his animal induced allergy thereby increasing the %age of the people with the allergy in the general population)
B. A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home( Wrong Answer : This option is irrelevant to the argument at hand.)
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.( Wrong Answer : But the argument is concerned with the %age of the people of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact.)
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.( Wrong Answer : This option is irrelevant to the argument )
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.( Wrong Answer : This option is irrelevant to the argument.)

even after reading other's reasoning for E, still not convinced how option E is wrong? Please explain

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.


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.

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.

To post additional questions not already addressed in this thread, please use the request verbal experts' reply button.

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!

Marked E while the answer is A. Could you explain why this is the case.

Also, B seems like a possible answer as well.

Check out this post and see if it helps!

If not, let us know what you are thinking, and we'll try to address any remaining doubts. The more specific you can be with your question/train of thought, the easier it will be for us to help.

Here, we are assuming that the population remains constant..isn't it too much.
I can say in E that if zoo employess are not wearing PPEs then how can we expect the same form the general public. So, the general public would have more cases.

Where am I wrong?
please suggest.

Regards,
Gaurav