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.