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

We addressed this issue here -- check it out and let us know if you have further questions!

Hi People,
Why is E incorrect.

My explanation :
If zoo keepers are wearing protective gears and still 30% of them develop allergies.
This implies that general population when having same contact time with animals, should be more than 30% because general population would not have same protective gears that zoo keepers use.
This based on assumption that general population do not have protective gears but isn't this true if we think literally ?

There's one key word that you missed in choice (E).

That word is "seldom."

Choice (E) is the following:

(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

"Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear," means that they rarely wear protective gear.

So, the basic point of (E) is that zoo employees do not wear protective gear, which means that they are similar to, rather than different from, the general population.

­
Premises:
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.

Experts’ conclusion based on the premises: 
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.

The premises tell us that 30% of the current zoo employees have animal induced allergies. But the experts are concluding that the actual number of people who develop such allergies is much more than 30%. We need something to help us strengthen this claim.

(A) A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

If the employees who get serious allergies switch jobs, it means that the current number of 30% does not include those employees. Hence the actual number of people who get allergies would be higher than 30% (since we know that some people develop serious allergies). Hence this option strengthens our conclusion that the actual number of people developing animal induced allergies is greater than 30%.
Correct.

(B) A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home.

A zoo employee is already considered to be in close contact with animals. Whether he/she keeps pets also is irrelevant. Also, we are talking about the people who develop allergies as a percentage of those who are in close contact with animals. How many people are in close contact with animals among the general population is irrelevant.

(C) The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.

Again, as discussed in option (B) above, how many people are in close contact with animals among the general population is irrelevant. The set may be small or large. We are concerned about the ones who develop allergies within this set.

(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.

Irrelevant. The conclusion talks about people who spend “similarly large amount of time with animals”. Whether people with pets fall in this category or not, we don’t care. The people that the question is talking about could be people with farms, people in poultry business, horse breeders etc.


(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

Irrelevant. What precautions they do or do not take is not relevant. Until and unless we are given some major differences in the way the zoo employees handle animals and other people who are in close contact with animals handle animals, this line of thought provides no help.

Answer (A)
 ­
Discussion on Strengthen Questions:
https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk
 

Hi experts GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyMurray
Can you pls explain why option C is wrong?
My understanding is if exposure is not same then it is possible that general population gets more exposure to animals in similar amount of time as compared to zoo employees. It is similar to one smoking 10 cigarettes in a day with 10g nicotine but another smoking 10 with 15g nicotine. Please let me know where I am faltering in this option.
Is this option wrong because "not same" exposure can mean either smaller or higher exposure?

This topic has 3 pages of discussion. I think there are pretty good explanations about why C is wrong.... it is wrong because it is irrelevant and does not strengthen. It would actually weaken the conclusion (opposite) as it says there are very few people who would have that level of exposure and thus allergy. I cannot see how your smocking analogy has relevance.

Thanks bb

Now I got the point, option C talks about the general population whereas the argument only talks about a specific subset of the general population which is people who have spent similar time with animals, thus, option C is irrelevant for us.

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.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

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

The support for the conclusion is the following:

In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies.

We see that experts have concluded basically that the incidence of animal-induced allergies in members of the general population who have spent a large amount of time in contact with animals is greater than that in zoo employees. At the same time, the passage doesn't provide a reason why experts have arrived at that conclusion.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the experts’ conclusion?

This is a Strengthen question, and the correct answer will somehow provide support for the experts' conclusion.

(A) A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

This choice is interesting.

After all, if a zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation, then the percentage of zoo employees who develop allergies is greater than 30 percent. In other words, more than 30 percent of zoo employees develop allergies, but then many of those who do develop allergies quit working at zoos, driving the percentage of zoo employees who have such allergies lower.

So, since presumably zoo employees are like other people, this information indicating that more than 30 percent of zoo employees develop allergies indicates that, in general, more than 30 percent of people who spend a large amount of time in close contact with animals develop allergies.

Of course, members of the general population don't stop being members of the general population after developing animal-induced allergies. So, if more than 30 percent of people with a lot of exposure to animals develop such allergies, then it makes sense that the incidence of such allergies in the general population is greater than 30 percent.

Keep.

(B) A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home.

The conclusion involves a comparison of "zoo employees" with people "who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals."

In contrast, this choice compares "zoo employees" with people simply "in the general population."

So, a simple way to eliminate this choice is to see that it compares the wrong groups of people.

Also, we can quickly see that the fact that zoo employees not only work with animals at zoos but also keep pets at home would certainly not be a reason to believe that the incidence of animal-induced allergies in zoo employees is lower than that in other people.

Eliminate.

(C) The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.

The conclusion is basically that the incidence of animal-induced allergies in one subset of the general population, "members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals," is greater than the incidence of such allergies in another subset of the general population, "zoo employees."

So, this choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion since basically all this choice means is that the subset "members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals" is small.

After all, the size of the subset has no effect on the incidence of allergies in people in that subset.

Eliminate.

(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.

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the argument.

After all, given what this choice says, it might be expected that people exposed to domestic pets as much as zoo employees are to animals kept in zoos would have a lower, rather than higher, incidence of animal-induced allergies.

Eliminate.

(E) Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

To indicate that the incidence of animal-induced allergies in "members of the general population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals" is likely higher than that in "zoo employees," we need information showing that the two groups are somehow different from each other.

So, this choice doesn't strengthen the argument since it indicates that the two groups are similar, rather than different.

After all, we know from common knowledge that members of the general population "seldom," meaning "rarely," wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

Now, this choice indicates that zoo employees are similar to members of the general population in this regard: zoo employees don't wear protective gear either.

So, this choice doesn't provide reason to believe that the incidence of animal-induced allergies in members of the general population exposed to animals is any different from that in zoo employees.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: A