Q10 - People who are allergic to cats are actually allergic

[jgmartin82]

PT68, S2, Q10 (Inference)

(C) is the correct.

We’ve got an inference question, so let’s get a grasp of our statements. We learn a couple things about people who are allergic to cats: they are reacting to proteins in cats’ skin and saliva (gross), and they are varied as to which proteins promote the reaction. Next, all cats can provoke an allergic reaction, but any given cat could give one person a reaction while not causing a reaction in another person.

To help internalize the statements, we should think about them for a moment. For instance, why might a cat cause reactions in one person but not another? Well, since it’s proteins that cause reactions, maybe that cat has a protein that causes the one person to react but doesn’t have the protein that causes the other one to react. On to the answers!

(A) is tempting but out of scope. It sounds like it’s saying that people won’t allergic to every cat, and that fits well with the statements. However, look at the first part of the statement: Any particular individual will be allergic to some breeds of cats. We’ve got a problem here. What do we know about any particular individual? The statements only provide information about individuals who are allergic to cats! It would be impossible to conclude something about any individual. Eliminate.

(B) Possibly, let’s hang on to it.

(C) Also looks promising; move on.

(D) Ya, this seems reasonable right? We all know of the varying intensities of allergic reactions people have to things. But careful! The argument said nothing about intensity, so even though this seems reasonable, it’s not supported by the argument. Eliminate.

(E) is unsupported. I’m not sure if we can predict this or not. If anything I would guess that we can predict it; we know what causes it after all. Eliminate.

So we’re down to (B) and (C). (B) is a more definitive statement, so we should be a bit more wary of it. Let’s check it out and see if it’s supported. It basically states that a cat can’t trigger allergies in all allergy sufferers. A good question to pose to ourselves is "˜given the statements, could a cat cause an allergic reaction in all allergy sufferers?’ Let’s check.

We know that it’s common for a given cat to cause allergies in some, but not all, people who are allergic to cats. So it’s common that cats don’t cause them in all people. Does that mean they never cause them in all people? No! (B) is incorrect because it is not supported by the statements.

How is it that (C) is supported? Again, according to the last line, it’s common for cats to cause allergic reactions in some but not all people who are allergic to cats. We know it’s proteins causing the reactions, so these cats must have a certain protein that causes the reactions in some people. Well what about the other people who are allergic to cats? They must be responding to a different protein found in different cats. So we can conclude that not all cats are identical.

[cehammock]

Couldn't it just as easily be that all cats produce identical proteins, and that different humans respond different ways to different proteins? That would knock out (C).

[ericha3535]

Here are my 2 cents:

I definitely feel what the above post is saying.

I chose B too...

I thought the first premis is saying: ohh cats have some proteins in their saliva (A B C) and have other types of proteins in skin secretion (D E F). So... it makes that some people are allgergic only to D whereas other some are only allergic to A.

First of all, this isn't a must be true question.

Second of all, my interpretation has an assumptuion: that all cats have same number and type of proteins.
Does this have to be true according to first premise? Not really. Could be though.

However, combining with the last statement, where a given cat causes a certain type of allergic reaction to a certain people, C is most supported: a given cat only could have "A B C" not "D E F" this is why people who are only allergic the former set of proteins are the only ones that show reaction to them whereas the other ones that are allergic to the latter set of proteins don't.

It's really poorly written one I believe... but A D E are easy knock outs and B is tricky but not supported due to the word "common."

So C is the best out of all...

[luluc]

Couldn't it just as easily be that all cats produce identical proteins, and that different humans respond different ways to different proteins? That would knock out (C).

You might have arrived at the argument you made by assuming that all cats (e.g. a, b, c) produce identical proteins (e.g. SET x y z); and further assume that people allergic to x only react to the x in a. But that is misreading the stimulus because if people are allergic to x, they will be affected by all cats (a, b, c) that contain protein x.

"although it is common for a given cat to cause an allergic reaction in some - but not all- people who are allergic to cats."
If a cat (or a group of cats with identical proteins) causes allergic reactions in some but not all people who are allergic to cats, then these other people who are allergic to cats must be caused by cats with different sets of proteins. Hence, (C) must be true.

[BogdanC356]

"No such thing as a cat incapable of provoking allergic reactions." Implies that everyone is allergic to some cats. If someone was not allergic to any cat, then there would be a case where a cat is incapable of provoking an allergic reaction. That is why I chose A, because that makes sense.

But, regardless, I should have chosen C anyway, because C is a weak necessary assumption anyway. It is the right kind of answer. A is too strong. A conclusion is a necessary assumption by definition.

[ohthatpatrick]

That's not a valid implication.

"No cat is incapable of provoking an allergic reaction" means that
"all cats are capable of provoking an allergic reaction".

To be capable of provoking an allergic reaction means that "at least once, you provoke an allergic reaction".


You're saying that if someone were not allergic to cats, then there would be a cat that's incapable of provoking an allergic reaction.

That's not right.

You seem to be interpreting
"all cats are capable of provoking an allergic reaction"
as
"every cat is guaranteed to provoke an allergic reaction from any person in front of them"

Let's say that you are not allergic to any cats, but I am allergic to some.

Cat X walks around your house and does not provoke an allergic reaction from you. Then it walks around my house and DOES provoke an allergic reaction from me.

Is this cat "capable of provoking an allergic reaction"? Yes. My allergic reaction to it proves that Cat X is capable.

Is Cat X "guaranteed to provoke an allergic reaction"? No. Your lack of allergic reaction proves that Cat X is not guaranteed to provoke.

Does that difference make sense?

[ldfdsa]

The words of this question are difficult to get a clear idea considering it's question #10.

but we can stillextract something from the premise that "there is no such thing as a cat incapable of provoking allergic reactions, although it is common for a given cat to cause an allergic reaction in some--but not all-- people who are allergic to cats. "

The first half simply tells us that any cat is capable of provoking allergic reactions in some people, and the second half tells us that no cat is capable of provoking allergic reactions to all the people. we can conclud nothing! e.g. all cats are the same in terms of their protains, and there is only one person in the world that is never allergic to cats. the argument still holds and (c) can still be false.

The part that bothered me a lot is that, "a cat" here doesn't mean any cat, it means "cats all together" are capable to provoke allergic reactions to "all the people"

we can also tell this by the second half, especially the word: "although" and "but not all". the words before "although" must mean ... allergic reactions to all the people.

only by this we can safely say (c) is right.

Basically, I believe this question is not a good one, but when considering the lauguage and their relations with each other, we may infer the meaning behind the words. Of course, the best way is by eliminating the wrong anwers, as always.