msr4mba wrote: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.
Which of the following hypotheses receives the strongest support from the
information given?


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

[spoiler]IMO:E by POE.I am not sure whether E is correct. What do you guys think?[/spoiler]

Kasia@MasterGMAT wrote:You are supposed to choose which of the answers given is best supported by the premises provided in the text of the task.

we have the following:
* 30% of zoo employees have severe animal allergies;
* this is the percentage even though there is high attrition of such employees (i.e., lots of them leave the profession).

taken together, these two statements provide a strong argument that a randomly drawn sample would have a proportion of such allergies higher than 30% - since 30% is the proportion that we get after a bunch of the allergy-affected employees leave zoo work.