Allergies

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

Allergies

by mmslf75 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:30 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.

Answer: E


WHY ?????
Last edited by mmslf75 on Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:34 pm
Thanked: 15 times
GMAT Score:760

by cbenk121 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:43 pm
mmslf75 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.
Answer: E


WHY ?????
This isn't a OG question, is it?

The problem with this question is that "animals" is left ambiguous. Do "animals" refer to ANY type of animals, or just animals found in zoos? Answer E, therefore, is dubious - are we referring to members of the general population who have spent equal times with ZOO animals, or ANY animals (such as cats)?

If it's not an OG question, I don't wish to analyze it - I'll spin my wheels trying to follow someone's logic that has not be scrutinized, validated, tested, re-validated, etc.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:34 pm
Thanked: 15 times
GMAT Score:760

by cbenk121 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:44 pm
cbenk121 wrote:
mmslf75 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.
Answer: E


WHY ?????
This isn't a OG question, is it?

The problem with this question is that "animals" is left ambiguous. Do "animals" refer to ANY type of animals, or just animals found in zoos? Answer E, therefore, is dubious - are we referring to members of the general population who have spent equal times with ZOO animals, or ANY animals (such as cats)?

If it's not an OG question, I don't wish to analyze it - I'll spin my wheels trying to figure out why someone's logic is correct, when that logic has not be scrutinized, validated, tested, re-validated, etc.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:03 am
cbenk:
cbenk121 wrote:This isn't a OG question, is it?

The problem with this question is that "animals" is left ambiguous. Do "animals" refer to ANY type of animals, or just animals found in zoos? Answer E, therefore, is dubious - are we referring to members of the general population who have spent equal times with ZOO animals, or ANY animals (such as cats)?
you have a point, but you have to remember that choice (e) is still BETTER THAN THE OTHER ANSWER CHOICES... and that's all that matters.

there are certainly official problems with minor logical issues such as this one - problems in which there is one answer that has problems, but is still far and away better than the other choices.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:06 am
mmslf75 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.
Answer: E


WHY ?????
you want the statement that follows most closely from the given statements.

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.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu May 13, 2010 7:37 am
I think this is a must be true question type than a strengthen type

Am I right??
Best-
Amit

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu May 13, 2010 7:39 am
Also where is it mentioned in the arg that 30% who develop the allergies leave the job

the arg gives example of one such employee who develop serious allergies so he left

Any thoughts guys?
Best-
Amit

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:02 pm
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:730

by gtvisa2002 » Fri May 14, 2010 12:45 pm
lunarpower wrote:
mmslf75 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.
Answer: E


WHY ?????
you want the statement that follows most closely from the given statements.

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.
I got your point and it does make sense.

But "since 30% is the proportion that we get after a bunch of the allergy-affected employees leave zoo work" bothers me because it seems we are going too far to prove that something has to be correct.

While I am not sure about the source, I am wondering whether this would be the case in exam.....
Thanks for your help.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 3:42 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:2 members

by Alex_Knewton » Fri May 14, 2010 1:10 pm
At Knewton, we would call this an "inferring conclusions" question, because the answer is a hypothesis (a conclusion) that follows from the information given (which is evidence).

We agree with lunarpower's interpretation. In fact, this question, while not perfect, is rather logically sound. Here are the logical jumps that have to be made by the test-taker to get to choice E, the correct answer:
  • 1. If 30 percent of current zoo employees have allergies, and many zoo employees have left because of allergies, then more than 30 percent of total zoo employees, past and present, must develop allergies. This is a move the GMAT loves to make- to divide entities (like "zoo employees") into multiple, more specific entities ("zoo employees who are currently working and have allergies", "zoo employees who have left the profession because they have allergies,", etc.)

    2. "Members of the general population who have spent as much time with animals as zoo employees typically have" (AKA animal lovers) are similar to zoo employees in the characteristic given: time spent with animals. Therefore, they are also likely to be similar to zoo employees in another, closely-related key characteristic: "animal-induced allergies." We can infer this because of the first sentence of the argument, in which these two characteristics (time spent with animals and allergies) are explicitly connected: "People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies."

    3. Putting (1) and (2) together, we see that regular animal lovers have the same allergy rate as zoo employees, and that more than 30 percent of zoo employees have allergies.
Voila! - Choice E.
Alex Sarlin
Verbal Lead
Knewton

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:02 pm
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:730

by gtvisa2002 » Fri May 14, 2010 7:53 pm
Thanks Alex.

I see another thread with different options is discussed here https://www.beatthegmat.com/animal-induc ... 34015.html

Thanks

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 3:42 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:2 members

by Alex_Knewton » Sat May 15, 2010 12:43 pm
Exactly! Good call, gtvisa.

Some GMAT companies use the same stems over and over, and change answer choices, or tweak things a bit to pad their numbers of questions. This can lead to some strange logical issues or weird, unrealistic situations. Luckily, this question stayed logical...
Alex Sarlin
Verbal Lead
Knewton