Animal-induced allergies

[success1111]

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animals-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.

[dtweah]

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. We don’t know this.

Can be lower, higher or equal.

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.

We have no information to base a conclusion of severity on. Eliminate.

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.

The passage does not permit differentiating categories of animal to analyze exposure to the allegy in question. It mentions spending a lot of times with animals, and doesn’t state which ones. Statistics on Domestic Exposure cannot be used to conclude NonDomestic Exposure. I Eliminate.

D) There is no occupation for which the risk of developing an animal-induced allergy is higher than 30 percent. Keep this answer. I see the word occupation but can’t figure things out yet. Move to E.

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.

We cannot conclude this. We don’t know how many zoos there are, how many members of the population there are, how many nonzoo AIAs there are. Too much information missing. Eliminate.

For the purposes of the Test I take D by elimination. For our current purposes, let’s begin with the sample given in the passage. Take the Zoos in question to be the only Zoos and consider them the Zoo industry. Let’s see whether they can exceed 30%.

We are told a significant percentage of AIAs are quite serious. I like to think anything significant is greater than 50% but let’s take it to mean One person for our purposes. Very conservative of course. We know those who develop Serious AIA join some other occupation.. Consider 3 scenarios.

3/10 30/100 300/1000


The numerator is the number of AIAS and the denominator is the number of employees from the Major Zoos who were asked. These are all 30 percent. Under sceneario I, 1 person is seriously affected. So 2 will stay. We are left with 2/10 < 30%. In the second scenario, we are left with 29/300<30%. Continue this and you see that the Major Zoos cannot have more than 30%, since 1 person leaves to join another occupation. I don't have to worry about another survey result b/c that is not in the passage. Now if the Major Zoos who hire more people can’t go beyond 30% it is logical to infer the minor ones may not. But again, I need not worry about this because I am supposed to find the choice which bests the other choices based on information in the passage. I have eliminated other choices b/c they cannot be supported by the passage and I must stay consistent with this principle.

Regarding other occupations whose employees have lesser contact with animals, I expect those occupations to be populated by the one person who leaves the Zoo industry in the passage. If the one person join some other occupation, you can see that he alone cannot put that risk above 30% since he is no longer in contact with animals.

If under the 3 scenarios all 30 of the people are considered Serioius and leave the Zoo industry and say join together to start a new occupation, the fact the are not exposed to animals means that their risk AIA is non existent consistent with the passage. Because I can use the information in the passage to support, I choose D.

[success1111]

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. We don’t know this.

Can be lower, higher or equal.

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.

We have no information to base a conclusion of severity on. Eliminate.

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.

The passage does not permit differentiating categories of animal to analyze exposure to the allegy in question. It mentions spending a lot of times with animals, and doesn’t state which ones. Statistics on Domestic Exposure cannot be used to conclude NonDomestic Exposure. I Eliminate.

D) There is no occupation for which the risk of developing an animal-induced allergy is higher than 30 percent. Keep this answer. I see the word occupation but can’t figure things out yet. Move to E.

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.

We cannot conclude this. We don’t know how many zoos there are, how many members of the population there are, how many nonzoo AIAs there are. Too much information missing. Eliminate.

For the purposes of the Test I take D by elimination. For our current purposes, let’s begin with the sample given in the passage. Take the Zoos in question to be the only Zoos and consider them the Zoo industry. Let’s see whether they can exceed 30%.

We are told a significant percentage of AIAs are quite serious. I like to think anything significant is greater than 50% but let’s take it to mean One person for our purposes. Very conservative of course. We know those who develop Serious AIA join some other occupation.. Consider 3 scenarios.

3/10 30/100 300/1000


The numerator is the number of AIAS and the denominator is the number of employees from the Major Zoos who were asked. These are all 30 percent. Under sceneario I, 1 person is seriously affected. So 2 will stay. We are left with 2/10 < 30%. In the second scenario, we are left with 29/300<30%. Continue this and you see that the Major Zoos cannot have more than 30%, since 1 person leaves to join another occupation. I don't have to worry about another survey result b/c that is not in the passage. Now if the Major Zoos who hire more people can’t go beyond 30% it is logical to infer the minor ones may not. But again, I need not worry about this because I am supposed to find the choice which bests the other choices based on information in the passage. I have eliminated other choices b/c they cannot be supported by the passage and I must stay consistent with this principle.

Regarding other occupations whose employees have lesser contact with animals, I expect those occupations to be populated by the one person who leaves the Zoo industry in the passage. If the one person join some other occupation, you can see that he alone cannot put that risk above 30% since he is no longer in contact with animals.

If under the 3 scenarios all 30 of the people are considered Serioius and leave the Zoo industry and say join together to start a new occupation, the fact the are not exposed to animals means that their risk AIA is non existent consistent with the passage. Because I can use the information in the passage to support, I choose D.

Thanks for your inputs.Unfortunate the OA is E.
I did post this question for the benefit of forum member who may have hard time to differentiate between inference and strengthening questions


Which of the following hypotheses receives the STRONGEST SUPPORT from the information given?
First,this is inference question,not strengthening question

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animals-induced allergies,a SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE(MORE THAN 50 % BASED ON LOGIC) 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.

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.

The survey of current employees in major zoos,says, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies

[anshulseth]

The logic for answer as E is:
If AIA with zoo employees is 30 per cent, and they leave the job if they have it, then this percentage will go down.

And as they leave the zoo and join the general population, thus percentage of AIA in general population can be more than 30 %.

Hence, E

[dtweah]

The logic for answer as E is:
If AIA with zoo employees is 30 per cent, and they leave the job if they have it, then this percentage will go down.

And as they leave the zoo and join the general population, thus percentage of AIA in general population can be more than 30 %.

Hence, E

Suppose the percentage in the general population is 15%. How will it be more than 30%. just because 30% of the people join them. How do you know this? The correct answer is D. I stay with it. Nothing in the passage supports E. That which is inferred must be supported. We can't just infer anything, then all answer choices will be correct. D.

[krisraam]

The logic for answer as E is:
If AIA with zoo employees is 30 per cent, and they leave the job if they have it, then this percentage will go down.

And as they leave the zoo and join the general population, thus percentage of AIA in general population can be more than 30 %.

Hence, E

Suppose the percentage in the general population is 15%. How will it be more than 30%. just because 30% of the people join them. How do you know this? The correct answer is D. I stay with it. Nothing in the passage supports E. That which is inferred must be supported. We can't just infer anything, then all answer choices will be correct. D.

If the general population spends as much time with animals as Zoo employees there will be same percent of people afftected with AIA.
30 people of 100 employees will be affected in Zoo because of contact with animals. 1000 among genral population have spent same time with animals as zoo employees. 300 people will be affected. In the argument it is given people who are seriously affected leave to other occupation makes the % more.

[Uri]

People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animals-induced allergies,a SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE(MORE THAN 50 % BASED ON LOGIC) 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.

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.

The survey of current employees in major zoos,says, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies

nice question.....but the objection to the above explanation is that significant percentage may not necessarily mean more than 50%. suppose, 15% of the HIV+ people develop AIDS. that may also be a significant percentage. or will you say that till the time it crosses, 50%, we should not term it as significant? i don't think so.

but still the answer can be (E), although i am not very confident. at first i also picked (D).

(A)-> general population are not as likely to get AIA as people who spend more time with animals. this option directly contradicts that fact,. so eliminate.

(B)-> this information is not supported in the passage.

(C)-> once again, not supported by the passage.

(D)-> zoo employees were taken just as a survey-population. the passage does not indicate that this is the highest possible percentage of AIA infected people. moreoever the presence of "no" makes it too extreme.

(E)-> the passage does not state that zoo employees are more or less likely than the general public to get AIA. moreoever, the passage only states, "People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animals-induced allergies". so, we can infer that the zoo employees and the general public spending as much time with the animals as the zoo employees have the same possibility to get AIA. suppose, 30% of both the group can get AIA. but when the AIA becomes serious, zoo employees leave the job and become members of the general public, who have spent as much time with animals as the zoo employees. thus percentage will drop from the set of zoo-employees while that will rise in the set of general public. hence, (E) is correct.

[Brad.C]

I would go with option E

[nicolette]

Guys can anyone give a decent reason why D is not right