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: A
这题好像是以前的一个题目的变形,可是我好像还是理解不了,为什么要选A . 请大家赐教
注意一个current和general population
现在已经有30％得病了
结论说是在总体人群里数字要比这更大
问支持
A填gap。得病得人转职业，这样新的人补进来，然后再得病，这样current有30％的情况下，总体人群的数目可能会大于这个数字，支持了结论
哦,明白了, 多谢版主. 出去的人都是有病的, 进来的人都是没病的,所有外面的得病率会更高.但是我原来理解题意是说,外界的人本来得病率就很高了.原来是因为这个原因啊
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 肯定无关，跟题目内容一点连接都没有。
C. The percentage of the general population whose level of exposure to
animals matches that of a zoo employee is quite small. 削弱结论。
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. 从逻辑推理中没有跳到这一层逻辑。
E. Zoo employees seldom wear protective gear when they handle animals
in their care. 出现“Protective gear"新概念，所以不对。从另外一方面说动物园职员是因为没有穿保护设施，所以容易得过敏症，但是如果一般的人和动物接触，也不会去考虑带这个保护装置的，所以只能证明它可能容易得过敏症，但是不能证明比30%这个数字更严重。所以从问题选项MOST SUPPORT上来说不绝对！ 一开始，我并不会选A，利用排除法，但是最后我发现，A选项，人们除了接触动物可能得到过敏症，还有一种可能，这些过敏症是通过不接触动物，接触有这个感染源的人，所以在”相同的大量的接触时间“为基础上，又多了这样一个接触源，所以一般人群得动物过敏症的比例明显要高于动物园工作人员，所以A可以推出来最支持最后的结论！
一开始，我并不会选A，利用排除法，但是最后我发现，A选项，人们除了接触动物可能得到过敏症，还有一种可能，这些过敏症是通过不接触动物，接触有这个感染源的人，所以在”相同的大量的接触时间“为基础上，又多了这样一个接触源，所以一般人群得动物过敏症的比例明显要高于动物园工作人员，所以A可以推出来最支持最后的结论！
up
看来要仔细读题干呀
很仔细的读
读出作者的重心和意图
其实这里考察的就是取样的科学性，这个sample与general population相比的话
偏低了
这也是argument里常考得一个话题
而且我们通常会觉得动物园里接触动物会比外面频繁
所以觉得动物园是高发区
这次是逆向思维
因为限定了一个条件 have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals
with animals
注意一个current和general population
现在已经有30％得病了
结论说是在总体人群里数字要比这更大
问支持
A填gap。得病得人转职业，这样新的人补进来，然后再得病，这样current有30％的情况下，总体人群的数目可能会大于这个数字，支持了结论
这里有个问题, 那些从动物园转业的人很可能不再与动物接触了. 所以这部分人不能算进among members of the general
population who have spent a similarly large amount of time in close contact with animals 里面啊.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |