Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 23 Mar 2017, 05:47

# R2 Decisions:

Yale SOM; Decision Tracker (Join Chat Room 4)  |  Berkeley Haas; Decision Tracker (Join Chat Room 5

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 382 [0], given: 14

Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2009, 02:15
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

86% (01:54) correct 14% (02:10) wrong based on 24 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2009, 03:02
IMO A

Nurses say that proportion of children sent to them has increased....

Conclusion blames greater exposure and increased sensitivity for increased numbers.

Logical assumption is that the number of nurses has not decreased....bcos if there are same number of nurses then the conclusion holds true, but if the number of nurses decreases then obviously the increase in student sent to the nurses will increased not bcos of the increased rate of students but bcos of decreased proportion of nurses.
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2009, 10:13
IMO, C.

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.

The argument depends on students being sent to them if they have an allergic reaction. If a mild reaction would not have warranted someone to be sent 10 years ago and now warrants one - independent of the actual severity of the reaction - then the argument fails.

--

I don't think it's A because they speak of the "proportion". I'm going out on a limb here but let's say 3 nurses watched 600 children and had 30 reactions (10 years ago). They would still base the total number of reactions on the student pool, not specifically how many cases they dealt with. This (I imagine) would hold true if 2 nurses are now employed and had 30 reactions over 600 children (despite the fact that they would increase their personal caseload by 50%).

I think I went way too convoluted into this. I still think it's C though.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 174
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2009, 23:55
C for me as well.

More of a direct causation vs A.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 382 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2009, 02:12
OA is C....
Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2010
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2010, 12:29
I am still not convinced why A cannot be the answer ..... Any inputs ???
Manager
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 208
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 120 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2010, 12:56
1
KUDOS
C - as if 10 years ago, not all students who have allergic reactions are sent ten years ago but they are sent now, then the argument fails.

boros2203 wrote:
I am still not convinced why A cannot be the answer ..... Any inputs ???

statement says ... Elementary school nurses .... sent to them for treatment
Here we are not talking about the per nurse basis but the total students sent to all the nurses. proportion represents the student proportion and not the number per nurse.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 324 [0], given: 411

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2010, 02:42
I fell for D
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2010, 16:23
me to , I went with D
Manager
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2010, 01:46
ANS : C.

the proportion of students sent to nurses increased over the past ten yrs,conclusion : either the students are exposed to more chemical,or they hv become more sensitive.

proportion incresed : 10 yrs b4 1/3 was sent ,now it may 2/3 of all students sent to nurses.
no of nusrses doesnt matter.wat if 10 yrs b4,only small proportion of the "infected" kids were going to nurses,and today,most of the "infected" kids are going to nurses....in this scenario,the conclusion will fail.... increased
proportion is because more infected kids are visiting to the nurses, the so the correct ans choice will make sure that this is nt the case.
and its stated in option c.
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1549
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 609 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2010, 12:23
I dont know why but I am still confused with the OA.

The stem says that proportion of children sent NOW for treatment has increased significantly than the proportion of children sent 10 years ago. Therefore, either schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or they are more sensitive to chemicals than schoolchildren were ten years ago.

When the stem is saying that children sent NOW (for treatment) has increased significantly than how are we assuming that children are no more likely to be sent to school nurse NOW than they were 10 years ago.
Manager
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 68
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2010, 13:44
we are assuming this "option C" to make the conclusion to be true.
negate the option c,then the conclusion will nt hold anymore !!
Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 248
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2010, 00:27
C
Not A because of proportion mentioned in the text. The nurses seem to be counting numbers having allergies versus all children. Moreover, if you logically negate C, the conclusion won't hold.
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 10:00
Why E cannot be the right answer?
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 11:28
fruit wrote:
Why E cannot be the right answer?

E and what the question states are different.

What the question states is the proportion of schoolchildren. In math, it is "number of schoolchildren sent to nurses for allergies" to "total number of schoolchildren"

whereas E is different since the proportion is "number of schoolchildren" to "total population of the school". This proportion does not have anything to do with the argument.

Therefore, E cannot be the answer.

I think C is the correct one. If C fails, it means now children are more likely to be sent to nurses (for example because the school is more sensitive to health problems of its students). Then we cannot link the rise of proportion to either of the two reasons concluded in the argument, higher quantities of chemical and children being more sensitive.

Hope I have explained clearly.
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 13:37
hao922 wrote:
fruit wrote:
Why E cannot be the right answer?

E and what the question states are different.

What the question states is the proportion of schoolchildren. In math, it is "number of schoolchildren sent to nurses for allergies" to "total number of schoolchildren"

whereas E is different since the proportion is "number of schoolchildren" to "total population of the school". This proportion does not have anything to do with the argument.

Therefore, E cannot be the answer.

I think C is the correct one. If C fails, it means now children are more likely to be sent to nurses (for example because the school is more sensitive to health problems of its students). Then we cannot link the rise of proportion to either of the two reasons concluded in the argument, higher quantities of chemical and children being more sensitive.

Hope I have explained clearly.

yeah, that is right. But I cannot understand why C.
The argument says "has increased significantly over the past ten year", and C I means that kids do not visit school nurses any more, so how can be determined that the number of allergic reactions increase?
how can we bind this two facts?
Or I misunderstand the meaning of some phrases?
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [1] , given: 14

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 13:56
1
KUDOS
fruit wrote:
hao922 wrote:
fruit wrote:
Why E cannot be the right answer?

E and what the question states are different.

What the question states is the proportion of schoolchildren. In math, it is "number of schoolchildren sent to nurses for allergies" to "total number of schoolchildren"

whereas E is different since the proportion is "number of schoolchildren" to "total population of the school". This proportion does not have anything to do with the argument.

Therefore, E cannot be the answer.

I think C is the correct one. If C fails, it means now children are more likely to be sent to nurses (for example because the school is more sensitive to health problems of its students). Then we cannot link the rise of proportion to either of the two reasons concluded in the argument, higher quantities of chemical and children being more sensitive.

Hope I have explained clearly.

yeah, that is right. But I cannot understand why C.
The argument says "has increased significantly over the past ten year", and C I means that kids do not visit school nurses any more, so how can be determined that the number of allergic reactions increase?
how can we bind this two facts?
Or I misunderstand the meaning of some phrases?

C does not mean "kids do not visit school nurses any more"
Instead, it means "Children who have allergic reactions to the chemicals are no more ( = EQUALLY )likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago".
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2010, 13:59
thanks a lot! kudos =)
Intern
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 3
Schools: HBS '16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 46

Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2016, 10:42
Hi,

I have stuck on this question. I read posts, but still I couldn't get why the answer is C

This is how i understand the argument:
Premise: Exposure to chemicals --> causes allergic reaction in children
Premise: Nurses report that number of children sent to them for chemical allergy treatment has increased over the past ten years
Conclusion: Children have been exposed to greater amount of chemicals or children are more sensitive than children 10 years ago.

As derived from conlcusion: In either way more children will be allergic, hence more children will go to the nurse.

Answer C states that: "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". In my opinion, C goes against the conclusion. And when negated it supports the conclusion: 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

Could someone please explain what is wrong with my reasoning?

Thanks

Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary   [#permalink] 22 Nov 2016, 10:42
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary 7 07 Aug 2010, 14:59
18 Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary 11 10 Dec 2009, 17:13
2 Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary 10 21 Feb 2009, 23:54
1 Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary 9 11 Oct 2007, 15:49
Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary 4 19 Jun 2007, 22:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.