Confusing CR

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

Confusing CR

by thestartupguy » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:38 am
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]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:09 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:2 members

by ankita1709 » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:41 am
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]
Seriously this is very confusing.
Can you please explain what the question is asking for? Is it asking the statement which strengthen the argument or the assumption.
Ankita

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by thestartupguy » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:43 am
it's Must be True type CR

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
Thanked: 322 times
Followed by:143 members

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:55 am
You are supposed to choose which of the answers given is best supported by the premises provided in the text of the task.
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course

"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.

"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/

"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by thestartupguy » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:21 am
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.
Kasia - could you pls explain how to solve this. Is option E correct?

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by umeshpatil » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:50 pm
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.
-> It is somewhat wrong or not mentioned in the argument. animal induced allergies should be higher among zoo employees than 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.
-->As per given info,Significant percentage of allergies are quite serious.

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.
-> We are considering the occupation and contact with animals.

D. There is no occupation for which the risk of developing an animal-induced
allergy is higher than 30 percent.
-> It is not mentioned anywhere. It may be wrong. Zoo employee are switching to the occupation, where probability is lower than 30%.

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.
--> It would be more probably true.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:03 am

by altyni » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:50 pm
I would bet for A, because people OFTEN develop a-i allergie (which is more than 30%) from which significant amount sew serious which is more than subset of 30%. So incidence in Zoo is lower.

What is wrong with E? I would question "as much time with animals"

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:33 am
Location: Pune,India
Thanked: 60 times
Followed by:6 members

by GMAT Kolaveri » Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:29 am
Check Ron's explanation.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/allergies-t49801.html
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.
Regards and Thanks,
Vinoth@GMAT Kolaveri
https://www.facebook.com/GmatKolaveri
https://gmatkolaveri.tumblr.com/

Click the thank you button if you like my reply :)