• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Most awarded test prep in the world
Now free for 30 days

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary sc

tagged by:

This topic has 3 expert replies and 16 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88

#### Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary sc

Sat May 14, 2011 4:48 am
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 Renstonâ€™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 Renstonâ€™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 Renstonâ€™s population now than they did ten years ago.

OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

Testluv GMAT Instructor
Joined
19 Oct 2009
Posted:
1302 messages
Followed by:
162 members
539
GMAT Score:
800
Mon May 16, 2011 12:27 pm
Hi aspirant2011,

yes. Since choice C talks about "the chemicals" and since there is only one group of chemicals the arguer considers, it must be the same group of chemicals that the stimulus discusses.

_________________
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Free GMAT Practice Test under Proctored Conditions! - Find a practice test near you or live and online in Kaplan's Classroom Anywhere environment. Register today!
aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88
Mon May 16, 2011 10:24 am
Testluv wrote:
nikit wrote:
Can anyone please explain how 'C' can conclusively be inferred as the most appropriate option?
More and more kids are coming to the nurses office. The author argues that this can only be explained by greater exposure or greater sensitivity. So, he must be assuming that there aren't any other explanations.

Choice C clearly defends the argument against an alternative explanation. Use the Kaplan denial test:

If kids ARE more likely to be sent to the nurses office than before, then it is not necessarily the case that there is more exposure or more sensitivity.

Choice A is tempting because it also seems to defend the argument against an alternative explanation; after all, if there are fewer nurses, then each nurse would naturally be seeing more kids. However, the key is that "Elementary school nurses in Renston" are a group. And as a group they are reporting an increase in kids sent to them for these allergic reactions.
Hi Testluv,

In option C "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals" over here to which is "chemicals" refering to?????Is it refering to the chemicals mentioned in the first line of the argument i.e to "cleaners or pesticides"????????

HSPA Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1101 messages
Followed by:
13 members
47
Target GMAT Score:
720
GMAT Score:
640
Sat May 14, 2011 5:10 am
I am with A.. though C and E are good contenders

A>C>E

Again on negation A has no impact on the conclusion.. it must be C.

Thanks for the assumption questions aspirant..

_________________
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88
Sat May 14, 2011 7:28 am
OA is C ............but I am totally not able to understand how it can be C .............please explain

mundasingh123 Legendary Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Posted:
2330 messages
Followed by:
26 members
56
Sat May 14, 2011 10:26 am
hi whats the source ?

_________________

aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88
Sat May 14, 2011 10:54 am
source is sandeep gupta (ivy GMAT preparation)...........

ajaarik Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
01 Jun 2010
Posted:
11 messages
Test Date:
SEPT 2010
Target GMAT Score:
740
Sat May 14, 2011 9:13 pm
However, A,C and E are equal contenders.

Any concrete reasons why A and E can be eliminated.

sourabh33 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
22 Mar 2011
Posted:
135 messages
Followed by:
3 members
21
Test Date:
25th June 2011
GMAT Score:
720
Sat May 14, 2011 10:03 pm
+1 for C

Option A - After Negating - no of nurses has decreased over past 10 yrs.
Now in the stem, the author says "the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment of allergic reactions to those chemicals has increased significantly over the past ten years"

So even if the no of nurses reduces the proportion should remain same, although actual no of cases may increase (Assuming other non allergic cases not to decrease drastically)

Option E - Out of scope.
The conclusion says - Therefore, either Renstonâ€™s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago

nikit Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Posted:
7 messages
Target GMAT Score:
800
Sun May 15, 2011 12:10 pm
Can anyone please explain how 'C' can conclusively be inferred as the most appropriate option?

### GMAT/MBA Expert

Testluv GMAT Instructor
Joined
19 Oct 2009
Posted:
1302 messages
Followed by:
162 members
539
GMAT Score:
800
Sun May 15, 2011 4:41 pm
nikit wrote:
Can anyone please explain how 'C' can conclusively be inferred as the most appropriate option?
More and more kids are coming to the nurses office. The author argues that this can only be explained by greater exposure or greater sensitivity. So, he must be assuming that there aren't any other explanations.

Choice C clearly defends the argument against an alternative explanation. Use the Kaplan denial test:

If kids ARE more likely to be sent to the nurses office than before, then it is not necessarily the case that there is more exposure or more sensitivity.

Choice A is tempting because it also seems to defend the argument against an alternative explanation; after all, if there are fewer nurses, then each nurse would naturally be seeing more kids. However, the key is that "Elementary school nurses in Renston" are a group. And as a group they are reporting an increase in kids sent to them for these allergic reactions.

_________________
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Free GMAT Practice Test under Proctored Conditions! - Find a practice test near you or live and online in Kaplan's Classroom Anywhere environment. Register today!
aspirant2011 Legendary Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Posted:
1574 messages
Followed by:
13 members
88
Tue May 17, 2011 9:40 am
Testluv wrote:
Hi aspirant2011,

yes. Since choice C talks about "the chemicals" and since there is only one group of chemicals the arguer considers, it must be the same group of chemicals that the stimulus discusses.
Hi Testluv,

The thing which is making me confused in this particular CR is that If I use the negation technique then option C becomes-

Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals (i.e cleaners or pesticides) are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago.

Then how is above negated option weakening my conclusion i.e

Therefore, either Renstonâ€™s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

sk8legend408 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
12 Aug 2011
Posted:
62 messages
Followed by:
1 members
3
Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:47 am
Hi aspirant2011,

Actually what choice C means is that children currently are more likely to go to the nurse if they have an allergic reaction than ten years ago. As in ten years ago even if a child had an allergic reaction he/she may not have been sent because allergic reactions were not perceived so seriously as they are now.

Hope that helps.

chufus Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
21 Jul 2011
Posted:
102 messages
Followed by:
1 members
4
Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:14 am
Testluv wrote:
nikit wrote:
Can anyone please explain how 'C' can conclusively be inferred as the most appropriate option?
More and more kids are coming to the nurses office. The author argues that this can only be explained by greater exposure or greater sensitivity. So, he must be assuming that there aren't any other explanations.

Choice C clearly defends the argument against an alternative explanation. Use the Kaplan denial test:

If kids ARE more likely to be sent to the nurses office than before, then it is not necessarily the case that there is more exposure or more sensitivity.

Choice A is tempting because it also seems to defend the argument against an alternative explanation; after all, if there are fewer nurses, then each nurse would naturally be seeing more kids. However, the key is that "Elementary school nurses in Renston" are a group. And as a group they are reporting an increase in kids sent to them for these allergic reactions.
I think Choice A is never tempting because the argument explicitly says "Proportion of Children", that means the number of school children and the number of nurses does not matter at all. And hence C becomes a clear winner. Just an observation. The key always lies in the use of certain "Key Words", if you may, and these key words generally will lead you to the right answer. The answer is always in the argument....

karthikgmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
09 Jul 2008
Posted:
172 messages
Followed by:
1 members
3
Target GMAT Score:
750
GMAT Score:
610
Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:22 pm
The conclusion is Therefore, either Renstonâ€™s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to them than schoolchildren were ten years ago. , So the assumption would be lying on children exposed to chemicals . From the options A , C are possible. After you negate A, it doesnt attack the argument." simply A doesnt even talk about children, eliminate. E is out of scope, as it was saying about renston's population

so IMO C.

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 112 topics
2 ardz24 71 topics
3 Roland2rule 69 topics
4 LUANDATO 53 topics
5 swerve 45 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

154 posts
2 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

107 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

106 posts
4 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

98 posts
5 EconomistGMATTutor

The Economist GMAT Tutor

91 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts