Assumption question

GMATGuruNY wrote:

CaptainM wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

CaptainM wrote:A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston's elementary schools has not decreased
over the past ten years.

So if I negate this option: the number of nurses go down the proportion would go up...so why not this option?

The children are being sent to the nurses. The argument is about why the children are being sent. The number of nurses doesn't affect why the children are being sent to the nurses.

Thanks a lot for the quick reply!!!

I am a still confused...plz help

"Renston report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years."

Option A says the number of nurses went down.
Say for example:
Total no of children affected: 100 total no. of nurses : 100 so the each nurse gets 1 child
Total no of children affected: 100 total no. of nurses : less than 100 => each nurse gets more number of children

So the conclusion falls apart as we have another reason for the increase.

(C) also gives another reason for the increase than the given conclusion.

The proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions does not mean the number of children per nurse. It means:

number of children sent for treatment of allergic reactions/total number of children

In other words, out of all the children, how many were sent to the nurses in order to be treated for allergic reactions to the chemicals? The number of nurses is irrelevant, so answer choice A can be eliminated.

Does this help?

WOW!!! Gr8 Explanation!!!

bigfernhead wrote:Okay, can we get the OA already?