People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, some of them quite...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

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 experts' conclusion?

A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home.

The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.

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.

Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
People who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies, some of them quite serious.	What it says: People who spend lots of time around animals frequently get allergies from those animals, and some allergies are pretty bad What it does: Sets up the basic premise about animal exposure leading to allergies What it is: General background fact Visualization: Animal Workers → 60-70% develop allergies (some mild, some serious)
In a survey of current employees in major zoos, about 30 percent had animal-induced allergies.	What it says: A study found that 30% of zoo workers have animal allergies What it does: Provides specific data that seems to contradict the "often" claim from before What it is: Survey finding Visualization: Zoo Workers Survey: 30% with allergies, 70% without 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.	What it says: Experts think the real percentage for all people (not just zoo workers) who spend lots of time with animals is way higher than 30% What it does: Presents the main conclusion that contradicts what we'd expect from the zoo data What it is: Expert conclusion Visualization: Experts' Prediction: General Population with similar animal exposure → 50-60%+ with allergies (much higher than zoo workers' 30%)

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a general claim about animal exposure causing allergies, then presents survey data showing only 30% of zoo workers have allergies, but then experts conclude the real rate for the general population should be much higher than 30%.

Main Conclusion:

Among people in the general population who spend lots of time with animals, the percentage with animal allergies is substantially more than 30%.

Logical Structure:

This is a puzzle-type argument where the conclusion seems to go against what the evidence suggests. The experts are claiming there's something special about zoo workers that makes them LESS likely to have allergies compared to regular people who spend similar time with animals. We need to find what makes zoo workers different.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the experts' conclusion more believable. The experts claim that the general population with similar animal exposure has substantially MORE than 30% allergy rate, even though zoo workers only show 30%.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve specific percentages (30% for zoo workers) and a comparison claim (general population should be 'substantially more' than 30%). We're dealing with quantity-based claims about allergy rates across different populations.

Strategy

To strengthen the experts' conclusion, we need reasons why zoo workers would have LOWER allergy rates than the general population, even though both groups have similar animal exposure. This would explain why 30% in zoo workers actually suggests a much higher rate in the general population.

Answer Choices Explained

A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation.

This choice explains why zoo workers would have artificially low allergy rates compared to the general population. If zoo employees who develop serious allergies tend to switch careers, then the current workforce naturally excludes many people who would have developed allergies. This creates a selection bias - we're only surveying the people who could tolerate staying in the job. The 30% figure becomes an underestimate of the true rate we'd expect in a random population with similar animal exposure. This directly supports the experts' conclusion that the general population rate should be substantially higher than 30%. This strengthens the argument perfectly.

A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home.

This suggests zoo employees have even MORE animal exposure than the general population (through pets at home). If anything, this would make us expect zoo workers to have higher allergy rates than the general population, not lower. This would weaken rather than strengthen the experts' conclusion that the general population should have higher rates than the 30% found in zoo workers. This doesn't support the argument.

The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small.

This tells us that few people in the general population have zoo-level animal exposure. While this might be true, it doesn't explain why those few people in the general population who DO have similar exposure would have higher allergy rates than zoo workers. The experts are specifically comparing people with similar exposure levels, so the size of this group doesn't affect the comparison. This is irrelevant to strengthening the conclusion.

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.

This suggests zoo animals cause more allergies than domestic pets. This would make us expect zoo workers to have higher allergy rates than people exposed mainly to domestic animals, not lower rates. This contradicts the experts' conclusion that zoo workers' 30% rate underestimates what we'd see in the general population with similar exposure. This weakens the argument.

Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care.

This suggests zoo workers have more direct animal contact than we might assume, which should increase their allergy rates. Like choice D, this would make us expect zoo workers to have higher, not lower, allergy rates compared to others with animal exposure. This doesn't explain why the general population would have substantially higher rates than the 30% observed in zoo workers. This doesn't strengthen the conclusion.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...