Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary sc

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary sc

by aspirant2011 » Sat May 14, 2011 4:48 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.

[spoiler]OA: Will be posted later. Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]

Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640
by HSPA » Sat May 14, 2011 5:10 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members
by aspirant2011 » Sat May 14, 2011 7:28 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

OA is C ............but I am totally not able to understand how it can be C .............please explain

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: 15 Jan 2010
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members
by mundasingh123 » Sat May 14, 2011 10:26 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

hi whats the source ?

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members
by aspirant2011 » Sat May 14, 2011 10:54 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

source is sandeep gupta (ivy GMAT preparation)...........

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
by ajaarik » Sat May 14, 2011 9:13 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

However, A,C and E are equal contenders.

Any concrete reasons why A and E can be eliminated.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:720
by sourabh33 » Sat May 14, 2011 10:03 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

+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 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

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: 23 Apr 2011
by nikit » Sun May 15, 2011 12:10 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Can anyone please explain how 'C' can conclusively be inferred as the most appropriate option?

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:163 members
GMAT Score:800
by Testluv » Sun May 15, 2011 4:41 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members
by aspirant2011 » Mon May 16, 2011 10:24 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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"????????

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:163 members
GMAT Score:800
by Testluv » Mon May 16, 2011 12:27 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members
by aspirant2011 » Tue May 17, 2011 9:40 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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 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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members
by sk8legend408 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:47 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members
by chufus » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:14 am

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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....

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:610
by karthikgmat » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:22 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

The conclusion is 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. , 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.