• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Reach higher with Artificial Intelligence. Guaranteed
Now free for 30 days

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

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

tagged by:

This topic has 3 expert replies and 12 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88

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

Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:49 am
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 expertsâ€™ 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.

OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail

RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Tue May 17, 2016 3:31 am
Hi Verbal Experts,
Could you please shed some light on why EXACTLY Option C is wrong ?

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14042 messages
Followed by:
1813 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:03 am
Sukant wrote:
Why cant the answer be (e). If the zoo workers wear protective gears, then they will have a lower probability to get an animal induced allergy then the general population will have by exposure to their domestic pets.
Thanks.
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.
E states that zoo employees do not wear protective gear.
It is unlikely that the general population wears protective gear: a pet-owner does not put on a glove to pet the family dog.
Since E implies that zoo employees and the general population are SIMILAR, it WEAKENS the conclusion that the two groups will have DIFFERENT allergy rates.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14042 messages
Followed by:
1813 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:32 am
aspirant2011 wrote:
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 expertsâ€™ 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.

OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail
The key word in the argument is current: the survey included not ALL zoo employees, past and present, but only current zoo employees.
One way to strengthen the argument would be to show that, because the survey included only current employees, the percentage with allergies was underreported.

Answer choice A does just what we need: A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. Thus, the current employees surveyed did not include all the employees with allergies who had left. This means that the percentage of people who developed allergies while working at the zoo was likely much higher than 30%, suggesting that the percentage of non-employees who develop allergies also will be much higher than 30%.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
amar66 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
14 Jan 2011
Posted:
94 messages
Followed by:
5 members
2
Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:23 am
A: correct. Already explained by Mitch
B:OOS
C:Weaken the argument
D:Irrelevant(pet vs zoo animals is not issue in Arg)
E: OOS

madhujeya Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Posted:
13 messages
Test Date:
Jan 26
Target GMAT Score:
700+
Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:21 am
What is the OA?

aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88
Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:34 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:
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 expertsâ€™ 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.

OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail
The key word in the argument is current: the survey included not ALL zoo employees, past and present, but only current zoo employees.
One way to strengthen the argument would be to show that, because the survey included only current employees, the percentage with allergies was underreported.

Answer choice A does just what we need: A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. Thus, the current employees surveyed did not include all the employees with allergies who had left. This means that the percentage of people who developed allergies while working at the zoo was likely much higher than 30%, suggesting that the percentage of non-employees who develop allergies also will be much higher than 30%.

thanks a lot mitch for your wonderful explanation ........Yup the OA is A

ratan_2009 Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
17 Jul 2009
Posted:
12 messages
Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:50 pm
why B cant b d ans? anyone xplain plz

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14042 messages
Followed by:
1813 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:14 am
ratan_2009 wrote:
why B cant b d ans? anyone xplain plz
The argument compares two groups of people (the employees and the non-employees) who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals. Since it is given that the two groups are spending similar amounts of time with animals, answer choice B -- which discusses the location of the animals -- is irrelevant.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
sushbis Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
27 Feb 2008
Posted:
23 messages
Followed by:
1 members
1
Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:11 pm
Well this problem can be easily solved by way of elimination. All the options other than A serves to weaken the argument. Only A (though a very feeble premise) somewhat validates the argument.

Sukant Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
20 Nov 2013
Posted:
9 messages
Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:27 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:
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 expertsâ€™ 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.

OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail
The key word in the argument is current: the survey included not ALL zoo employees, past and present, but only current zoo employees.
One way to strengthen the argument would be to show that, because the survey included only current employees, the percentage with allergies was underreported.

Answer choice A does just what we need: A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation. Thus, the current employees surveyed did not include all the employees with allergies who had left. This means that the percentage of people who developed allergies while working at the zoo was likely much higher than 30%, suggesting that the percentage of non-employees who develop allergies also will be much higher than 30%.

Hi,
Why cant the answer be (e). If the zoo workers wear protective gears, then they will have a lower probability to get an animal induced allergy then the general population will have by exposure to their domestic pets.
Thanks.

Marty Murray Legendary Member
Joined
03 Feb 2014
Posted:
2050 messages
Followed by:
131 members
955
GMAT Score:
800
Fri May 27, 2016 10:47 pm
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi Verbal Experts,
Could you please shed some light on why EXACTLY Option C is wrong ?
Answer choice C is a classic "sounds as if says something key while actually being completely irrelevant" wrong answer choice.

What is being compared is the percentage of zoo employees reporting allergies and the percentage experiencing allergies of non zoo employed people who have spent a large amount of time in close contact with animals.

So we are looking at percentages of two specific sets, zoo employees and non zoo employed people who have spent a large amount of time in close contact with animals. The fact that the second set is SMALL IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL POPULATION does nothing to affect the percentages WITHIN that set.

_________________
Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
https://infinitemindprep.com/
In Person in the New York Area and Online Worldwide

RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:52 am
Got you Marty.

Basically the CONCLUSION is valid on the basis of the two following aspects, I guess:

1. Either the there is some INCONSISTENCY with zoo sample (and this INCONSISTENCY is basically explained in the OA). This is more likely reason for the CONCLUSION to hold good, I guess, because ARGUMENT says "Based on this sample, experts conclude that..."

2. Or the total numbers in the SECOND SET is substantially less than the number of zoo employees exposed to animal-induced allergies.

Now,Option C seems to imply: although this percentage is small, by common sense we can say that the real numbers -- the number of people with zoo-like animal exposure among the general population -- are NOT likely to be *that* small because anyway general population would be substantially more than the zoo employees,GENERALLY. Now these numbers may be more than the zoo-employees having animal exposure - we really don't know; although they're likely to be more because general population would ALWAYS likely to be GREATER than the the zoo employees...

Therefore,precisely, C doesn't really help identify whether the animal-induced allergies will be more than 30 percent or not among members (who're aligned to zoo-like animal exposure) of the general population; in other words, C doesn't help in strengthening the CONCLUSION.

Does it sound correct ?

Marty Murray Legendary Member
Joined
03 Feb 2014
Posted:
2050 messages
Followed by:
131 members
955
GMAT Score:
800
Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:29 pm
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Got you Marty.

Basically the CONCLUSION is valid on the basis of the two following aspects, I guess:

1. Either the there is some INCONSISTENCY with zoo sample (and this INCONSISTENCY is basically explained in the OA). This is more likely reason for the CONCLUSION to hold good, I guess, because ARGUMENT says "Based on this sample, experts conclude that..."

2. Or the total numbers in the SECOND SET is substantially less than the number of zoo employees exposed to animal-induced allergies.

Now,Option C seems to imply: although this percentage is small, by common sense we can say that the real numbers -- the number of people with zoo-like animal exposure among the general population -- are NOT likely to be *that* small because anyway general population would be substantially more than the zoo employees,GENERALLY. Now these numbers may be more than the zoo-employees having animal exposure - we really don't know; although they're likely to be more because general population would ALWAYS likely to be GREATER than the the zoo employees...

Therefore,precisely, C doesn't really help identify whether the animal-induced allergies will be more than 30 percent or not among members (who're aligned to zoo-like animal exposure) of the general population; in other words, C doesn't help in strengthening the CONCLUSION.

Does it sound correct ?
While you end up at the right place, the way you get there does not really sound right to me. From what you said I get the impression that you are still falling into the trap of choice C.

We really don't care about the relative sizes of the absolute numbers of members of the sets.

There could be thousands of zoo employees and only 50 non zoo employees who have had zoo employee type of exposure to animals, and the argument would still work, because all we care about is the percentages within the two sets.

The experts' conclusion in that case would be that while 30% of the thousands of zoo employees experience animal induced allergies, more than 30% of the 50 non zoo employees who spend similar amounts of time around animals experience animal induced allergies.

There could be 10,000 zoo employees and 500,000 non zoo employees who spend a lot of time around animals, or 1,000,000 zoo employees and 10 non zoo employees, and the argument would still work.

_________________
Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
https://infinitemindprep.com/
In Person in the New York Area and Online Worldwide

RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:48 am
Marty,
I hear you here...however, my first reasoning in my last post above seems to be correct,I guess (because the INCONSISTENCY in the sample is explained in the OA -- some Zoo employees having such allergy are MOST LIKELY to be outside the Zoo currently as they've switched jobs with the result that they're NOW part of the GENERAL POPULATION.)

Quick thoughts ?

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 76 topics
2 LUANDATO 59 topics
3 ardz24 52 topics
4 AAPL 46 topics
5 M7MBA 45 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

141 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

136 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

134 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

129 posts
5 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

110 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts