Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 00:28 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 00:28
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
655-705 Level|   Strengthen|         
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [2]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 27 Aug 2020, 13:05
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gauravvinod92
Byjus
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.)

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
Show more
Take a look at this post for another way to think about (A). We don't need to assume that the population remains constant. Instead, if we know that a bunch of people with serious allergies quit working at the zoo, then the survey data is artificially low (because those people won't be included in the zoo survey data). If those people HAD been surveyed, then the allergy rate would be higher.

So, if we surveyed a group of people in the general public who have close contact with animals, we'd expect this new survey to reflect the higher rate.

Jconchat
Hi, normal people have also animals (pets: Cats, Dogs, etc)...

If people in zoo use protections when are in contact with animals (E), and normal people do not use protections, then normal people alergies level should be much higher.

My answer was also (A), but I evaluated seriusly option (E).
Show more

Take another look at the exact wording of (E):
Quote:
(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
Show more
This actually tells us that zoo employees rarely wear protective gear. In other words, they DON'T use protective gear most of the time.

If (E) told us that zoo employees DO wear PPE, then you'd be spot on! But the exact wording of (E) tells us almost the opposite, so it doesn't give a good reason to suspect that normal people have more allergies than zoo employees.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
ProfChaos
User avatar
Joined: 11 Apr 2020
Last visit: 06 Dec 2020
Posts: 122
Own Kudos:
351
Given Kudos: 630
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
Posts: 122
Kudos: 351
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 23 Sep 2020, 00:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mymba99
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 animal induced 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.
Show more

When I was solving this one in mock exam I marked the answer as E.

My understanding during mock:
Zoo employees spent a lot of time with animals and developed animal-induced allergies (30% of them)
BASED ON THIS
General people who spent a lot of time with animals will also develop such allergies BUT the rate of developing such allergy would be > 30%

So, to strengthen, I must link these two phenomenon
E stated that zoo employees seldom wore protective gear
My logic:
Even normal people dont wear protective gear, since zoo employees who didnt wear protective gear developed the allergies, thus normal people would also develop these allergies BUT I totally didnt pay attention to the >30% fact.


I somewhat agree with the logic in A, which is the correct choice but I still have a doubt.... How can we conclude that the allergy can transfer between humans??

So, lets say a zoo employee with the allergy changes his occupation. How can we be sure that a normal person who doesnt have the allergy develop the allergy by coming in contact with the zoo employee??

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [4]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [4]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 23 Sep 2020, 23:14
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ProfChaos
mymba99
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 animal induced 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.

When I was solving this one in mock exam I marked the answer as E.

My understanding during mock:
Zoo employees spent a lot of time with animals and developed animal-induced allergies (30% of them)
BASED ON THIS
General people who spent a lot of time with animals will also develop such allergies BUT the rate of developing such allergy would be > 30%

So, to strengthen, I must link these two phenomenon
E stated that zoo employees seldom wore protective gear
My logic:
Even normal people dont wear protective gear, since zoo employees who didnt wear protective gear developed the allergies, thus normal people would also develop these allergies BUT I totally didnt pay attention to the >30% fact.


I somewhat agree with the logic in A, which is the correct choice but I still have a doubt.... How can we conclude that the allergy can transfer between humans??

So, lets say a zoo employee with the allergy changes his occupation. How can we be sure that a normal person who doesnt have the allergy develop the allergy by coming in contact with the zoo employee??

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
Show more


I think you are missing a point here. We are not inferring that animal induced allergies can be transferred among humans (though looking at the current state of the world, I understand why you would think so!).

Say there are 100 employees in a zoo. 30% of them have allergies.

Experts claim that among the general pop, more than 30% have these allergies if they spend similar time with animals. Why? Why more than 30%?

Option (A) tells us that employees leave when they develop serious allergies.

So the situation is this: There are 100 employees in a zoo. 50 of them develop allergies out of which 20 are serious. These 20 leave the zoo and take up another job and the zoo hires 20 fresh people. That is why only 30% seem to have allergies. The actual percentage is higher.

This supports what the experts say.
avatar
Giorgosaek
avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2020
Last visit: 30 Apr 2021
Posts: 9
Given Kudos: 187
Posts: 9
Kudos: 0
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 25 Oct 2020, 10:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I still do not get how A is correct.
Assume that there are 100 zoo employees 30 of which obtain an allergy (30%) if 10 employees of those 30 change occupation ,then they would be considered as general population.
Up to this point it is pretty clear.
BUT the 30% would be actually less, since 100-10 ( who left and now considered as Gen.pop.) =90 zoo employees of which 20 still have the allergy hence 20/90= 23% then how is it possible to be substantially more than 30% even if we consider the 10 employees with allergy that belong to the general public?
Can ahone please explain where am i faltering.?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [2]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 01 Nov 2020, 09:30
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Giorgosaek
I still do not get how A is correct.
Assume that there are 100 zoo employees 30 of which obtain an allergy (30%) if 10 employees of those 30 change occupation ,then they would be considered as general population.
Up to this point it is pretty clear.
BUT the 30% would be actually less, since 100-10 ( who left and now considered as Gen.pop.) =90 zoo employees of which 20 still have the allergy hence 20/90= 23% then how is it possible to be substantially more than 30% even if we consider the 10 employees with allergy that belong to the general public?
Can ahone please explain where am i faltering.?
Show more
Let’s take a closer look at (A):

Quote:
(A) A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.
Show more
The information in the passage and (A) does not suggest that 30% of employees have an allergy and THEN leave. Rather, (A) implies that many of the employees with serious allergies ALREADY left. In other words, it’s not that 30 out of 100 employees have allergies, and THEN some of them leave. Instead, 40 out of 100 employees had allergies, 10 of them left to join the general population, and now only 30 out of 100 employees have allergies.

This means that many zoo employees with serious animal-induced allergies choose to be part of the general population, but not part of the zoo. So, the 30% of zoo employees with animal-induced allergies would have been higher had the employees stayed. When you take into account the fact that many employees with allergies ALREADY left and the result was an allergy rate of 30%, it makes sense that the ACTUAL rate (among members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals) would be substantially higher than 30%. For that reason, (A) is correct.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
gagan0303
User avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2020
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 110
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 413
Location: India
Schools: Said '23 Judge '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Said '23 Judge '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 110
Kudos: 14
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 19 Jun 2021, 07:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja I have seen many people on this post saying that E is weakner but how? It looks more likely to strengthen the argument, its just that A is better.

Gagan
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 26 Jun 2021, 08:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gagan0303
GMATNinja I have seen many people on this post saying that E is weakner but how? It looks more likely to strengthen the argument, its just that A is better.

Gagan
Show more
Take a look at this post and see whether that clears things up!
avatar
abelka
avatar
Joined: 19 May 2021
Last visit: 09 Feb 2022
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 132
Posts: 25
Kudos: 13
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 27 Jun 2021, 12:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am still not convinced why answer E is not correct.
My reasoning: Answer E uses the word "seldom", which is NOT = "never", so they wear protective equipment occasionally...so let's say out of 100% time of interaction with animals, 90% are without PPE. Still 10% with that equipment.
At the same time, the general population NEVER wears that PPE, as a presumption, as they are not required. And they spent "a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals", so they in fact spent more time with animals without PPE. Therefore, they suffer more = higher % of people with allergies. Option E clearly supports the experts' conclusion.

As for the answer A,
while employees leave a zoo after allergies are detected, they do not increase the number of the general public, they just become part of the focus group (those, who spent significant time with animals), that is why it should be incorrect.

Could anyone clarify where my logic is flawed?
User avatar
meixuexu90
User avatar
Joined: 08 Apr 2021
Last visit: 31 Aug 2022
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
1
 [1]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: United States
Schools: Duke Fuqua (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
GRE 1: Q166 V161
GPA: 3.7
Schools: Duke Fuqua (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
GRE 1: Q166 V161
Posts: 3
Kudos: 1
 [1]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 18 Jul 2021, 00:55
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Simplified version:

Zoo employees and general public spend same amount of time in contact with animals.
Why a higher percentage of the general public got allergies?

An analogy would be:
Swimmers and MBAs eat the same amount of Pizzas
Why a higher percentage of MBAs gained weight?
Because: the swimmers who gained weight quit their team.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 19 Jul 2021, 07:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abelka
I am still not convinced why answer E is not correct.
My reasoning: Answer E uses the word "seldom", which is NOT = "never", so they wear protective equipment occasionally...so let's say out of 100% time of interaction with animals, 90% are without PPE. Still 10% with that equipment.
At the same time, the general population NEVER wears that PPE, as a presumption, as they are not required. And they spent "a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals", so they in fact spent more time with animals without PPE. Therefore, they suffer more = higher % of people with allergies. Option E clearly supports the experts' conclusion.

As for the answer A,
while employees leave a zoo after allergies are detected, they do not increase the number of the general public, they just become part of the focus group (those, who spent significant time with animals), that is why it should be incorrect.

Could anyone clarify where my logic is flawed?
Show more
We covered (E) a bit in this post. But the problem is that we can’t assume that the general population NEVER wears PPE. Sure, they are not required, but we also don’t know that zoo employees are required to wear PPE. And it’s possible that people in the general population could occasionally wear protective gear, even if they aren’t required. We simply don’t have any information that compares the protective gear use of the two groups. Eliminate (E).

We cover the numbers and logic of (A) in this post. Take a look at that post, and let us know if you have any other questions!
avatar
dadaquest
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2016
Last visit: 06 Nov 2022
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
16
Given Kudos: 40
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, International Business
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 23
Kudos: 16
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 01 Nov 2021, 21:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
akhil911
tuanquang269
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 animal induced 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.

Please give your reasoning

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 !!!!
Show more


Option E never says that public doesn't wear protective gear. it says that Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear.
So you cant conclude that zoo employees are more prone than general public. however you can conclude that yes zoo employees get allergies because they seldom wear protective gear.
In my opinion, E also strengthens the conclusion because since zoo employee whose actual job is to take care of animals, seldom wear protective gear then what about general public(lets say a person with a pet dog). Will he wear protective gear? general public would obviously not wear protective gear with animals at home since its not their job it is their daily routine. Therefore general public are more prone to allergies as they will obviously not wear protective gear as its not their job.

Can anyone prove me wrong here?
User avatar
Queen789
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 25 Jan 2020
Last visit: 17 Jun 2022
Posts: 49
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 8
Location: India
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23 ISB '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GPA: 3.31
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23 ISB '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 49
Kudos: 9
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 02 Nov 2021, 07:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
% in question is Number of people in general population with allergies /Number of people in general population who have same exposure to animals as Zoo employees.

How does any of these two compare with Zoo percentage to make us believe that overall percentage is greater than 30%???
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [1]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 05 Nov 2021, 19:10
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Option E never says that public doesn't wear protective gear. it says that Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear.
So you cant conclude that zoo employees are more prone than general public. however you can conclude that yes zoo employees get allergies because they seldom wear protective gear.
In my opinion, E also strengthens the conclusion because since zoo employee whose actual job is to take care of animals, seldom wear protective gear then what about general public(lets say a person with a pet dog). Will he wear protective gear? general public would obviously not wear protective gear with animals at home since its not their job it is their daily routine. Therefore general public are more prone to allergies as they will obviously not wear protective gear as its not their job.

Can anyone prove me wrong here?
Show more
We address why (E) is wrong in this post and also this post. But here are a few more thoughts in case they help:

The correct answer will provide the "strongest grounds" for the conclusion 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."

Let's consider (E):

Quote:
(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
Show more
If Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear, it's unlikely to have a big effect on their contact with animals. And keep in mind, we're trying to support the conclusion that the percentage will be substantially more than 30%.

If the answer choice told as that zoo employees "frequently wear protective gear," that could support the conclusion. But seldom doesn't tell us much. In fact, if they seldom wear protective gear, there's really no lower limit on how infrequently they wear it. Maybe most employees never wear it? Regardless, the fact that they seldom wear it won't explain the substantial difference we're looking for, so (E) is out.

Queen789
% in question is Number of people in general population with allergies /Number of people in general population who have same exposure to animals as Zoo employees.

How does any of these two compare with Zoo percentage to make us believe that overall percentage is greater than 30%???
Show more
Take a look at our earlier analysis of this question, and let us know whether that clears things up!
User avatar
Rainman91
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2020
Last visit: 23 Mar 2023
Posts: 87
Own Kudos:
33
 [2]
Given Kudos: 120
Posts: 87
Kudos: 33
 [2]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 05 Nov 2021, 20:41
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dadaquest
akhil911
tuanquang269
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 animal induced 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.

Please give your reasoning

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 !!!!


Option E never says that public doesn't wear protective gear. it says that Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear.
So you cant conclude that zoo employees are more prone than general public. however you can conclude that yes zoo employees get allergies because they seldom wear protective gear.
In my opinion, E also strengthens the conclusion because since zoo employee whose actual job is to take care of animals, seldom wear protective gear then what about general public(lets say a person with a pet dog). Will he wear protective gear? general public would obviously not wear protective gear with animals at home since its not their job it is their daily routine. Therefore general public are more prone to allergies as they will obviously not wear protective gear as its not their job.

Can anyone prove me wrong here?
Show more


Hi! I had the same exact problem when I was solving this question. I was stuck between answers A and E.

During my prethinking stage, I came up with the assumption that the general population can develop more than 30% allergy rate only if the zoo keepers are taking precautions (i.e. vaccinate themselves, wear face mask/gloves, or carefully conduct themselves around the animals).

So when I came to the option, I thought this matches my prethinking but it was COMPLETELY opposite of what I thought. If the people do not wear gloves and their rate is 30%, then normal people (who will definitely not wear gloves frequently) can be at most 30%. Not MORE than that.

In reality this is weakening the conclusion.

I eliminated B, C, D and now E. And even though I didn't like the answer choice A, I chose this answer because of the GMAT strategy which helped improve my accuracy rate: Eliminate 4 answer choice instead of choosing an answer that looks right.

Hope it helps.
avatar
devansh18
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2020
Last visit: 01 Apr 2022
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Posts: 16
Kudos: 1
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 15 Dec 2021, 07:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
ProfChaos
mymba99
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 animal induced 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.

When I was solving this one in mock exam I marked the answer as E.

My understanding during mock:
Zoo employees spent a lot of time with animals and developed animal-induced allergies (30% of them)
BASED ON THIS
General people who spent a lot of time with animals will also develop such allergies BUT the rate of developing such allergy would be > 30%

So, to strengthen, I must link these two phenomenon
E stated that zoo employees seldom wore protective gear
My logic:
Even normal people dont wear protective gear, since zoo employees who didnt wear protective gear developed the allergies, thus normal people would also develop these allergies BUT I totally didnt pay attention to the >30% fact.


I somewhat agree with the logic in A, which is the correct choice but I still have a doubt.... How can we conclude that the allergy can transfer between humans??

So, lets say a zoo employee with the allergy changes his occupation. How can we be sure that a normal person who doesnt have the allergy develop the allergy by coming in contact with the zoo employee??

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja


I think you are missing a point here. We are not inferring that animal induced allergies can be transferred among humans (though looking at the current state of the world, I understand why you would think so!).

Say there are 100 employees in a zoo. 30% of them have allergies.

Experts claim that among the general pop, more than 30% have these allergies if they spend similar time with animals. Why? Why more than 30%?

Option (A) tells us that employees leave when they develop serious allergies.

So the situation is this: There are 100 employees in a zoo. 50 of them develop allergies out of which 20 are serious. These 20 leave the zoo and take up another job and the zoo hires 20 fresh people. That is why only 30% seem to have allergies. The actual percentage is higher.

This supports what the experts say.
Show more

Hi VeritasKarishma

I read through your explanation, which is crystal clear as always!
While I am clearly convinced how the actual number of allergies at zoo is more than 30%, probably 40% or 50%, are we inferring that similar percentage (40% or 50%) of cases would be among the general population also since the premise states "general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time"?

Since we are here referring to sub-category of general population i.e. the category of people who spend similar amount of time - among such people, the cases would be higher (40% or 50%) considering that similar category of such people (zoo employees) have already been proven to have more than 30% cases

Thanks, Devansh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [2]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 15 Dec 2021, 22:17
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
devansh18

I read through your explanation, which is crystal clear as always!
While I am clearly convinced how the actual number of allergies at zoo is more than 30%, probably 40% or 50%, are we inferring that similar percentage (40% or 50%) of cases would be among the general population also since the premise states "general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time"?

Since we are here referring to sub-category of general population i.e. the category of people who spend similar amount of time - among such people, the cases would be higher (40% or 50%) considering that similar category of such people (zoo employees) have already been proven to have more than 30% cases

Thanks, Devansh
Show more


Yes devansh18
We are given in the argument that based on the 30% figure, experts concluded 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.

This is the conclusion of the experts. They are saying that among the general pop who spend a lot of time with animals this percentage will be more than 30%. Why did the experts conclude that? Perhaps because they know that among zoo employees, people who develop serious allergies leave. So the incidence of allergy development would perhaps be 50% among zoo employees. Then the incidence of allergy development along the general pop who spend so much time with animals would also be 50%. That might be the reason experts concluded what they did.
Hence, option (A) gives us the strongest grounds (strongest reason) for experts' conclusion.
User avatar
Namangupta1997
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Apr 2025
Posts: 145
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 145
Kudos: 8
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 13 Jun 2022, 12:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun

The correctness of option A is based on the fact that people who quit come into the group of general population. But this alone should not be sufficient as it assumes :

1. During counting of the people with allergy in general population, ALL of the ex-zoo employees still had those allergies which they got while working at the zoo.

2. They did not switch to the an occupation which involved a zoo but weren't in direct contact with animals (like maybe someone working at the counter in a zoo). Would that still make them part of general population? Not clear.

I thought about all these assumptions and could not come to terms that option A should be considered. Now since it is an official question, I believe A is indeed the undisputed answer. What am I missing ?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 21 Jun 2022, 19:26
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Namangupta1997
AjiteshArun

The correctness of option A is based on the fact that people who quit come into the group of general population. But this alone should not be sufficient as it assumes :

1. During counting of the people with allergy in general population, ALL of the ex-zoo employees still had those allergies which they got while working at the zoo.

2. They did not switch to the an occupation which involved a zoo but weren't in direct contact with animals (like maybe someone working at the counter in a zoo). Would that still make them part of general population? Not clear.

I thought about all these assumptions and could not come to terms that option A should be considered. Now since it is an official question, I believe A is indeed the undisputed answer. What am I missing ?
Show more
Hi Namangupta1997,

It's safe to say that a zoo employee who switches "to some other occupation" is no longer working at a zoo. Also, remember that the argument isn't about the general population. The author actually goes with "among members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals".
User avatar
Tanchat
User avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Last visit: 20 Jun 2023
Posts: 222
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 139
Posts: 222
Kudos: 20
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 05 Jul 2022, 08:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
r19
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.
Show more

GMATNinja
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?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,781
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,781
 [2]
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often deve 06 Jul 2022, 15:19
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Tanchat
GMATNinja
r19
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.

GMATNinja
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?
Show more
Let's start with (E):

Quote:
(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
Show more
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.
Show more
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!
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts