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.
Pls explain your reasoning.
"However, a zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation." --> shows that at the time of survey some of those who had animal induced allergies might have left the zoo (shifted employment). so the number of 30% is actually on the lower side. But this (leaving job) will not be applicable for the general public whoc might have pets and spend equal amount of time with pets. I do have a issue with the word significantly but by POE also i am getting the same answer
it is under fire and pressure DIAMONDS are created
I was to choose between A & E.....My choice was finally A!
But now that I look at it, E is perfect. I did not consider that a subset of total population, those who have spent time with pet and wild animals is closer than general public.
Here is the argument in favour of E:
Premise: Some 30% of all people who work at zoo seemed to contract allaergies.
Premise II: Of all those who do contract diseases, most peope chuck their jobs.
Conclusion: More than 30% of the employees contract such allergies.
Conclusion II: Overtime of all the people who have had given amount of exposure with animals more than 30% of people wil likely have alergies.
Success is achieved not by strength, but perseverance! (Abridged) - Samuel Johnson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)