Question

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

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

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

(D) 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.

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

Answer 1

Answer:

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

Explanation:

The correct option is C: The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small because a zoo employee is, in general terms, in a high and constant contact with animals, so thinking about people who have had the same level of contact than them, which of course has to be small, and the possible presence of allergies in general population, we can consider the option that this percentage increases in function of the number of persons who have been asked for an answer. Thus, no matter the small level of coincidence between a zoo employee and a regular person, it could be a fact that is inferring what would happen if we make the study in bigger groups of interviewees.

Option A: A zoo employee who develops a serious animal-induced allergy is very likely to switch to some other occupation can't be the true one because we really don't know if a person who presents some kind of allergy will be sorting out his or her problem changing his or her workplace, also it doesn't have a relation with the percentage of people who could develop an allergy; B option: A zoo employee is more likely than a person in the general population to keep one or more animal pets at home can't be true because it is a generalization and it becomes the information hard to believe: we really couldn't affirm that just for working on a zoo, all the employees will be animal lovers. doesn't agree with theOption D: 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 doesn't agree with the presented information, so it prevents us of affirming everything about domestic pets (finally there are animals too). Option E: Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals in their care is another generalization that we shouldn't be considering because the level of protective gear that a zoo employee has to use depends on the kind of animal that he or she is taking care of.