BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Assumption question

Expert replies
by kiranlegend » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:38 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 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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by jsl » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:48 am
Is the answer C?
Join the discussion

by atlantic » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:12 am
D for me
Join the discussion

by beyondlimits » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:21 am
jsl wrote:Is the answer C?
how did you get c? can you pls explain?
Join the discussion

by ildude02 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:58 am
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?
Join the discussion

by reachac » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:05 am
IMO C
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:37 am
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]
Join the discussion

by ildude02 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am
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.
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:07 am
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
Join the discussion

by ildude02 » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:22 am
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.
Join the discussion

Re: Assumption question

by kiranlegend » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:15 pm
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 :( :?
Join the discussion

by n_niaz » Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:20 am
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.
Join the discussion

Re: Assumption question

by kiranlegend » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:40 pm
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:)
Join the discussion

by gmatsure76 » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:10 am
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.
Join the discussion

by bigfernhead » Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:42 am
Okay, can we get the OA already?
Join the discussion