再问 GWD27--Q28 !!! 急！！！

jameshzd

GWD27-Q28 (GWD-26-Q22）

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. E 和 A 我怎么感觉是一回事啊？E 错在哪里呢？是错在 siginificant 字眼上吗？

E 和 A 我怎么感觉是一回事啊？E 错在哪里呢？是错在 siginificant 字眼上吗？

雪梦儿

针对梦雪儿的疑问：A它说的是incidence 也就是比例，incidence= 患serious的zoo employees/ current zoo employees ,即使你说换serious的员工都跑了，所以这个incidence 可能会很小，但是这个与另一个incidence 作比较：incidence= 患 serious 的general population/ general population, 即使分子中包含了 zoo 里跑了那一部分员工，但是分母 是个多庞大的数字啊，很多人可能都不会像zoo employees 那样接触动物啊，所以比不出来的。我应该是讲明白了吧？呵呵

-- by 会员 jameshzd (2011/7/23 16:38:22)

原来是分母大大。。。。OMG。。。懂了懂了~谢谢哈~~~~

jameshzd

不好意思啊，是雪梦儿。。。

jameshzd

针对梦雪儿的疑问：A它说的是incidence 也就是比例，incidence= 患serious的zoo employees/ current zoo employees ,即使你说换serious的员工都跑了，所以这个incidence 可能会很小，但是这个与另一个incidence 作比较：incidence= 患 serious 的general population/ general population, 即使分子中包含了 zoo 里跑了那一部分员工，但是分母 是个多庞大的数字啊，很多人可能都不会像zoo employees 那样接触动物啊，所以比不出来的。我应该是讲明白了吧？呵呵

jameshzd

顶 ！！！彻底消除了疑虑啦！

Kb24

A不对的原因就是30%其实指的就是current zoo employee 过敏的比例。这个30%是在很大比例得allergies的employees转行剩下以后的比例。所以A不对。而且去和 among the general population去比较，更加站不住脚，因为在 among the general population中，到底有多少人接触animals呢？会不会只有1%甚至万分之一的人才接触animals呢？那会导致A更加不可靠。所以A必然是不对的

E就表述得比较周密了

jameshzd

A 不对的原因是不是我在楼上的楼上的楼上的帖子里写的原因啊？不好意思让你看了好多楼上。。。。

Kb24

是啊因为题干里面significant 加very likely 推出来的，所以E的significant并不算突兀和无理
P.S. A中的incidence也是发生几率的意思，所以A不成立

jameshzd

哈哈，前辈和我想法一样，荣幸啊！！！答案是E，那肯定是GWd 的答案有问题，siginificant 这个字眼也是对的，我看掉了一个a significant percentage of which are quite serious中也是有 siginificant嘛！

Kb24

我认为这道题的答案是E，
因为问的是Which of the following hypotheses receives the strongest support from the information given，有点相当于是infer题
根据题干：（1） about 30 percent employees in major zoos had animal-induced allergies
                  (2)   a significant percentage of allergies are quite serious
                （3） 得了serious allergies的employees VERY LIKELY换工作走人
   根据1,2,3,可以得出，zoo employee中一旦得了allergies, 就【很大可能】是SERIOUS的----【很大可能】换工作离开ZOO。 如果要让zoo employees得allergies的水平维持在30%的水准，那么实际得allergies的可能性肯定是【大大】高于30%

A 说The incidence of serious allergies，zoo employees比普通人低，这点不能从题干推出
E  说假设普通人和ZOO EMPLOYEE接触动物同样多时间，得allergies的比例是比现在ZOO里面【明显】高的。可以被题干支持。