Q22 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. 答案是A，我选C。
这里边的 general population是指谁呢，我认为指的是大众，可是有 members of the general population，难道是指动物园的普通工作人员？可是前面survey的对象是current employees in major zoos，应该已经包含了所有动物园的员工了。那么这个members从何而来？
本来我预期答案中应该有个动物园人员人员保护措施多，外边人员保护措施少，所以同样接触程度时过敏率更高，但是没有。
结论是不是该这样翻译：在普通人中和动物有同样接触程度的，其过敏度不是30％，而是高得多。
基于这个结论，各个答案都不理想：
A ： 过敏的动物园人员会换到其他岗位，这不能说明这样的人占普通人的比例异乎寻常的大，更不能说明为什么会高的多。错
B：动物园人员更容易养宠物；和普通人无关啊，或者如果结论是普通人过敏度小才对啊。错
C：普通人中同样接触度的比例很小；这不能说明为什么会高，但是至少说普通人实际过敏的人比率不是很大，看来实际点。接触比率*过敏比率＝实际过敏比例；有别的选择我决不选
D：接触家养动物比动物园动物不容易引起过敏。与结论相反。错
E:动物园人员很少用保护措施。那么普通人怎么样没说，但是seldom是否定意义上的词，否定动物园人员受到的保护好，对结论只有削弱作用。错
所以感觉全不对，不是题错了，就是我真的晕了。我希望是我晕了，哪位大侠来指点一下迷津吧
| 
