[讨论]GWD26-22 动物园－过敏 那道

bigtone

    

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

    

bigtone

我明白了，补充一下心得。

    

A. 原来所有的人（包括动物园人员）相同接触度引起过敏的比例都应该是一样的，当动物园里已经过敏的人跑到外边来之后，general
population里会过敏的人比率就提高了，所以起支持作用。

    

chamcham

yeah, good answer, thanks for enlighten me ( I was really confused 2)

singecho

选A的原因，我想是对动物严重过敏的人都离开动物园而去别的行业了，所以说，动物园的员工这一群体中，过敏的比例应该比普通人群要小（即是普通人群对动物过敏的比例大于30%），支持了题目中expert的观点

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-6-19 21:46:40编辑过]

tendgrr

以下是引用singecho在2007-6-18 21:22:00的发言：

选A的原因，我想是对动物严重过敏的人都离开动物园而去别的行业了，所以说，动物园的员工这一群体中，过敏的比例应该比普通人群要小（即是普通人群对动物过敏的比例大于30%），支持了题目中expert的观点

同意以上观点，可能有些严重过敏的人转行了，不干了，所以没有被统计在内，

而按照实际情况，普通人和动物园员工得病的概率一样，那么30%这个统计数据对于普通人群的参考意义肯定是只多不少

mimixiaxia

up

xiaoda

up

minirainbow

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.

这是动物园的变体

答案E

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-10-29 8:34:12编辑过]

KennyChenzju

我第一眼的感觉就是C，而且A是没有道理的！

我认为A不对的原因是：即使动物园的雇员得了过敏症，转到其他行业，就能保证明显多于30％吗？假设general population本来30%会过敏，即使加上这些转业的人（转业的人不太可能很多很多吧？zoo employee相对于大众来讲本来就没多少人），也不能保证过敏人数比率substantially more than 30％

我们来分析行文：

题目开头说了people who have spent a lot of time in contact with animals often develop animal-induced allergies 这是一个大前提. 然后去做了survey发现employee是30％。按抽样方法解释(based on this sample)，expert应该得出结论对大众来说也是30％。但是结论不是30％， 而是明显多substantially more. 从抽样推出总体，假设前提就是样本是具有代表性的spent enough amount of time，但如果样本不具有代表性，即 if  general population spent significantly smaller amount of time in contact with animals，这个30％就应该被放大！所以答案应该是C

skigorush