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

Can anyone explain what is wrong with option B?

Option (B) is not supported by the argument. Note that the argument does not differentiate between "zoo workers" and "others who spend a lot of time with animals". So we cannot say whether zoo workers have more serious allergies or "others who spend an equally large amount of time with animals". They all come under "people who spend a lot of time with animals". The survey was conducted on zoo animals - an example of "people who spend a lot of time with animals".

I selected option D because at the end of the argument the author says "a zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation".
I inferred that since the affected zoo employee switched to a different occupation , i.e for no other occupation would the risk of developing an animal-induced allergy can be higher than 30 percent .

Could someone explain why D is wrong ?

It is not necessary that ALL other occupations would have lower risk of animal induced allergy. Say for vets, the risk could be 40%.
The zoo employee doesn't HAVE to switch to a vet's job. He could become an accountant, a job in which the risk of animal induced allergy might be 0%. There would be many other jobs in which the risk would be much lower.

Usually we avoid extremely strong sentiments or unwarranted conclusions.

(A) Hold. This has some relevant details pertaining to passage.
(B) This hypothesis can not be supported by given passage. Passage does not compare two different kind of allergies. Out.
(C) This hypothesis can not be supported by given passage. Passage does not even talk about domestic & zoo animals. Out.
(D) This is a very strong statement. This hypothesis can not be supported by given passage. Out.
(E) Hold. This has some relevant details pertaining to passage.

(A ) and (E) are close.

Passage says two interesting things: First, It mentions that 30 % is a percentage of current employees that affected by allergies. Second, it says that many zoo employees actually leave that job.

(A) is out because the passage does not say that incidence of allergies in less in current employees.

By elimination (E) is likely to be true.

Let us see what E says

(E) says that among members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have--> This group will have a very high percentage of persons who are ex-employees, as not many persons would have the kind of exposure with animals as zoo employees. Also since these ex-employees had left the zoo job, because of allergies, therefore in this group the percentage of persons with animal-induced allergies would be significantly more than 30.

So E is ok.

This is our answer.

Responding to a pm:

Note that developing allergies happens over a period of time, not at a point in time. So when someone develops a serious allergy, it will take months or even years. Quitting will happen after this. So at any point in time, you would expect some zoo workers to have allergies (serious or not-so-serious)
The argument tells us that 30% of the zoo workers have allergies. When the allergies will become serious enough (again, this is a continuous scale. There isn't an immediate jump from normal to serious), they will quit. Hence, including those who quit, percentage of zoo workers who get allergies will be higher than 30.
Then in general population too, people who spend as much time with animals, more than 30% will get allergies.

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, a significant percentage of which are quite serious. In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies. However, a zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

Prethinking - the infected 30% employees of zoo are likely to join other occupation . once they join the general population they would become part of the general population . We should not assume anything further than this . Because we don't know if general population is already low or high in terms of infection .
So at this stage we can categorise infected vs not infected and zoo employees vs general population . please note we only know about infected zoo employees .we don't know if general people have spend more time with animals than the zoo keeper .

Which of the following hypotheses receives the strongest support from the information given? Meaning - which among below can be INFERRED from above info

(A) The incidence of serious animal-induced allergies among current zoo employees is lower than that among the general population.- Reject Firstly this is talking about INCIDENCE . we can't claim this because we have no info about the exposure of allergies in general public . eg total population 1000 (100 zoo employees + 900 general public ). General public is 900 and infected people in this are ZERO . total zoo employees infected 30 /100 . So here THE INCIDENCE of getting infected is higher in ZOO . and even if these employees leave this org then too the incidence they were infected started from zoo . WE HAVE NO INFO ABOUT EXPOSURE OF general public it could be high or low depending on public's interaction with animals in wild or other sources .

(B) Zoo employees tend to develop animal-induced allergies that are more serious than those of other people who spend equally large amounts of time with animals.

(C) Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal-induced allergy than is exposure to the kinds of animals that are kept in zoos.

(D) There is no occupation for which the risk of developing an animal-induced allergy is higher than 30 percent.

(E) Among members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have, the percentage with animal-induced allergies is significantly more than 30 percent. CORRECT . here the category for comparison has been fixed and we have info about both the categories mentioned here . Why we think general public will always be more than 30% is because the zoo keepers who have allergies will join the general public . even if general public has ZERO infections here the data will always show 30% increase .

Premise:
1. Zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
2. Currently, 30% zoo employers had AN allergies.

Conclusion:
A. The incidence of serious animal-induced allergies among current zoo employees is lower than that among the general population.
--> No we can't find evidence in the text. How about no one in the general population got allergies and the zoo employers who left their job were just 10%.
B. Zoo employees tend to develop animal-induced allergies that are more serious than those of other people who spend equally large amounts of time with animals.
--> Out of scope.
C. Exposure to domestic pets is, on the whole, less likely to cause animal-induced allergy than is exposure to the kinds of animals that are kept in zoos.
--> Out of scope.
D. There is no occupation for which the risk of developing an animal-induced allergy is higher than 30 percent.
--> We can not conclude this one from the text.
E. Among members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have, the percentage with animal-induced allergies is significantly more than 30 percent.
--> By POE, we can choose E. However, the real reason why E is correct is: The incidence of having allergies outside is higher than 30%.

GMATNinja egmat mikemcgarry
Could you help explain why option A is not correct?
I still don't get why (E) is the correct one.
Thanks for your help.

The passage says the following:

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, a significant percentage of which are quite serious. In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies.

We can see that the passage is about "animal-induced" allergies that develop in "people who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals."

Now, let's consider choice (A).

(A) The incidence of serious animal-induced allergies among current zoo employees is lower than that among the general population.

We can safely presume that people who work at zoos spend a lot of time in contact with animals, but notice that the passage does not say anything about "the general population." The passage doesn't tell us what percentage of people in the general population develop animal-induced allergies or what percentage of people in the general population spend a lot of time in contact with animals. So, the passage does not provide any reason for concluding what (A) says about the incidence serious animal-induced allergies in zoo employees versus that among the general population.

In fact, since, presumably, people who work in zoos spend more time in contact with animals than the average person in the general population spends, it seems possible that the incidence of such allergies in zoo employees is higher than that in the general population even though the passage says that a zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

So, (A) is not supported by the passage.

GMATGuruNY

Can you explain option A and E. i wasn't able to understand

Consider the following scenario, which aligns with the information in the passage.
In 2020, the zoo opens with 100 employees.

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, a significant percentage of which are quite serious.
By January 30, 2022, 70 of the 100 employees have developed serious allergies.
If a survey were conducted on this date, the allergy percentage would be 70%.
Implication:
A person who spends a lot of time with animals has a 70% chance of developing a serious allergy.

A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
On January 31, 2022, 40 of the employees with serious allergies switch to another occupation, and the zoo replaces them with 40 new employees.

In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies.
The survey is conducted on February 1, 2022.
Since 40 of the 70 employees with allergies just quit, only 30 employees with serious allergies remain, yielding an allergy percentage of 30%.
But this statistic is misleading because it does not account for the 40 employees who just quit.
The true probability of developing an allergy -- 70% -- is contained in the blue statement above.

Which of the following hypotheses receives the strongest support from the information given?

E: Among members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have, the percentage with animal-induced allergies is significantly more than 30 percent.
Correct!
In the case above -- which aligns with the information in the passage -- a person who spends a lot of time with animals has a 70% percent chance of developing an allergy, significantly more than 30 percent.


A: The incidence of serious animal-induced allergies...among the general population.
The passage offers no information about the GENERAL POPULATION.
It is limited in scope to PEOPLE WHO SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH ANIMALS.
Eliminate A.

GMATGuruNY
Thanks alot for this great explaination.

i do have one doubt not related to this question it's general

we can apply negation technique in strengthener as well as weakener question
in strengthener case correct ans will weaken and weakener case it will strengthen

AndrewN MartyMurray

Can you please explain why (E) is correct? I still dont understand how the general population having close contact with animals be compared. I understand that overall percentage of zoo employes having allergy is more than 30%, but why they go out to other occupations, now how does this percentage become "significantly" more than 30%? The overall(denominator) in general population with close contact could be very high and the allergic people could be low, thus making the percentage less than 30%?

Hello, shanks2020. If you have a follow-up query about an earlier post, it might be best to ask that author. Of course, what you say could be true. However, you cannot overlook the restriction at the beginning of answer choice (E): Among members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have. It seems reasonable to assume that, without any kind of information on pet ownership to point to, most people in the general population probably have not spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have. (Besides, it could be true that zoo employees have a much higher rate of pet ownership than do members of the general population, meaning that such zoo employees would be in contact with animals nearly 24 hours a day.) The idea is that if, as the passage tells us, many zoo employees leave that line of work if they develop a serious animal-induced allergy, they enter the workforce with their allergies in tow. Among non-zoo employees, perhaps veterinarians, pet groomers, equestrians, and others could spend as much time around animals as zoo employees do, but they should also have as high an incidence of developing animal-induced allergies, and now these former zoo employees are joining their ranks.

I agree that (E) is not the strongest answer imaginable, but it is the only viable option from among the five presented. (Perhaps this is why I took 3:03 to answer the question (correctly) when I laid eyes on it for the first time in 2021.) Keep in mind, receives the strongest support does not mean proves.

Best of luck with your studies.

- Andrew

AndrewN

Thanks again for your detailed explanation. So to learn from this question, that even "Inference" question need not be "must be true/100% deducible"? It depends on the question stem.
However, the general understanding is that conclusion/inference question should not require any assumption and must be true always based on the given argument.

You should always frame your answer using the actual phrasing of the question stem, regardless of how the question may be categorized on this site or elsewhere. On test day, you will not see "Inference" or any other tag, so the best thing you can do during preparation is to ignore the tags while you are attempting the question. Later on, during review, it is fine to pay attention to tags to see if any patterns emerge. For example, if your accuracy is high among assumption questions but low among weaken questions, then you might consider spending more time looking at the latter. Even so, I would urge you to resist compartmentalizing everything into question types and developing unique approaches to each. It is far more important and useful to grasp the underlying logic of the passage and view the answer choices through the appropriate question-specific lens.

- Andrew