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.
参考答案是A。这也是CD17-22题,偶实在有点不明就里,这里对动物有敏感症的动物公园员工转换工作
对结论有什么support作用呢?谢谢!
哦,想想又好像明白啦!就是说动物公园的员工染上病的不少都转换工作啦,亦就是说现在survey已经是underestimate了那个比例啦,所以在一般人之中,如果也像公园员工一样频繁接触动物的染上病的比例就应该更高啦!偶的理解不知对不对,谢谢指教!
lz的想法虽然能做出答案,但我认为想法是不对滴!
支持题的前提是没有这个支持条件原文推论也成立,所以不存在lz说的survey被understimate的问题.
a 答案加入题干中可使普通人群中动物过敏的人数增加,那么此类人的比例增大,从而加强expert的结论
lz的想法虽然能做出答案,但我认为想法是不对滴!
支持题的前提是没有这个支持条件原文推论也成立,所以不存在lz说的survey被understimate的问题.
a 答案加入题干中可使普通人群中动物过敏的人数增加,那么此类人的比例增大,从而加强expert的结论
嗯,其实之前我也有想过lucy说的这个问题,但系再又觉得动物管理员不会有多少吧,而普通人群中与动物有亲密接触的人这个基数其实是很大的,即使加入了几个动物管理员对比例应该不会产生什么影响吧。。。
偶认为这个underestimate是相对的,并不说这个survey是不准的意思,只是就目前的情况而论,的确存在一些有过敏症的动物管理员已经离职而没有算到survey里面,所以才会认为这个比例应该更高一点才贴近普通人群的实际比例。
不知偶有没想错呢?
after add A into the inference of the arg we will drawn the conclusion much more powerful.
If zoo employees who got the virous convert their jobs and new staff come into zoo ,the amount of human beings who got the viours will be even larger .So if 30 percent had animal-induced allergies in current employees in major zoos,the total amount of people with animal-induced allergies is not 30 percent but substantially more.
没想到这么复杂....
其实这个比例应该更高, 只不过感染重病的人都走了,
lz的想法虽然能做出答案,但我认为想法是不对滴!
支持题的前提是没有这个支持条件原文推论也成立,所以不存在lz说的survey被understimate的问题.
a 答案加入题干中可使普通人群中动物过敏的人数增加,那么此类人的比例增大,从而加强expert的结论
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) | Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |