Critical Reasoning

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in 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. Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
C. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

Is the answer C?

D for me

jsl wrote:Is the answer C?

how did you get c? can you pls explain?

Is the answer E? Since if that's not assumed, then if the proportion of children attending the school increased, the proportion of children exposed to checmicals also increases. What's the answer?

IMO C

IMO: C

IT says: Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

Use negation rule: Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

The argument doesnt hold.
IF The number of children affected now and ten years ago is the same and only the number of affected children sent to the nurses have increased then the argument about the overexposure or sensitivity of children doesnt hold any value.

Thus it is assumed that the likelihood of a child to be sent to a nurse if affected is same now as it was ten years ago.This supports the conclusion

I hope this helps..

thx.[/u]

Can you explain how E cannot be an assumption since if we negate E, the argument seems to fall apart as well. Appreciate your response.

You have a point..

But in my opinion..

If there is an increase in the proportion of the children attending the school doesnt mean the proportion of children affected ans sent increases( stimulus says "some" children are affected)


P.S: please dont give the OA.

Let people discuss!!

thx

you are correct. I realized it after spending a little time on why E can be wrong, and then I thought, the most important word which I missed was that "some" children are allergic. So it can be reasnoned that all the new childern who joined increase the proportion of the school children but it can be that none of them are allergic", so it wouldn't hurt the argument if it weren't true.

kiranlegend wrote:Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in 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. Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
C. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

The conclusion is 'either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.'

also stimulus says:"Elementary school nurses in 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. " --->proportion of people sent to them has increased.. then how will c be the assumption? C says " Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago. "

i'm kinda lost in it

IMO C.

For The proportion of children in school relative to Renston's population does not give us a concise answer. The population could have increased or decreased.

C is the best answer.

kiranlegend wrote:Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children. Elementary school nurses in 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. Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
C. Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are not more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

well i still have some doubts..

the argument says :Elementary school nurses in 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. Therefore, either Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

proportion has increased.. assuming two cases: 1) population of school children has increased..

2) population of school children either got decreased or stayed at the same.

i don't know whether viewing this is a correct way.. but could someone kindly explain on these lines with some numericals if possible?

frankly, i am not understanding this since last coupla days.. someone pls make a dent:)

IMO

proportion of Students have increased now than before ,so what it means is that now more students are coming to nurse than before ,due to some reason

It should not be the case that before also same proportion of students and now also same proportion of students but before not all sent to nurses but now more likely all the ppl are being sent. if this correct then the conclusion will not hold.

Okay, can we get the OA already?