Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 00:49 |
It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 00:49 |
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 2701:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Sep 2807:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 28, 2026 - Oct. 16, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
Oct 0102:00 AM EDT
-03:00 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Oct 0107:00 AM BST
-08:00 AM GMT
Welcome to the GMAT Club's Free Interview Prep Event for Top MBA Programs! Buy tickets - Virtual series that’s all set to equip you to -excel in your MBA interviews.
Oct 0301:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Saturdays Oct. 3, 2026 - Dec. 26, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm EST
Updated on: 31 May 2024, 10:16
Originally posted by joemama142000 on 17 Apr 2006, 03:26.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 May 2024, 10:16, edited 6 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 31 May 2024, 10:16, edited 6 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
71% (01:49) correct
29%
(02:11)
wrong
based on 16211
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
OG2017, CR635, P536
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.
OG2017, CR635, P536
Solving this question helps.
Taking a timed set of similar questions in
GMAT Club Forum Quiz →
is even better.
21 Nov 2017, 21:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The author concludes that one of two things has happened over the past ten years: either 1) Renston’s schoolchildren have been exposed to greater quantities of the chemicals, or 2) they are more sensitive to the chemicals than schoolchildren were ten years ago. How does the author arrive at this conclusion?
The author states two possible explanations for this increase, but are those the only options? The author's explanation will only hold up if one of the following is assumed:
That could explain the increase in the proportion of schoolchildren sent to the elementary school nurses, even if students' exposure and sensitivity to the chemicals has not changed. In order for the argument to hold, the author must assume 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. Choice (C) looks good.
Choice (C) is the best answer.
- We are given that exposure to cleaners and pesticides commonly used in schools can cause allergic reactions in some children.
- Over the past ten years, the proportion of schoolchildren sent to school nurses for allergic reactions to THOSE chemicals has increased significantly.
The author states two possible explanations for this increase, but are those the only options? The author's explanation will only hold up if one of the following is assumed:
Quote:
A change to the number of nurses doesn't impact the number of students sent to see the nurses, so (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
We are not concerned with allergies to other substances. Regardless of whether children allergic to the chemicals are more likely to have allergies to other substances, we still need to explain why more students are now sent to the nurses because of reactions to THOSE chemicals. The two theories in the conclusion are only meant to explain the increase in the number of schoolchildren sent to the nurses because of THOSE chemicals, so choice (B) is irrelevant.
Quote:
According to the argument, the increase in the proportion of schoolchildren sent to the elementary school nurses is due to either greater exposure to the chemicals or a greater sensitivity to the chemicals. But what if 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? Maybe the amount and severity of the allergic reactions was the same ten years ago but students were simply less likely to be sent to the nurse back then. Maybe ten years ago the teachers simply let the suffering students remain in class with watery eyes and running noses (for example).
That could explain the increase in the proportion of schoolchildren sent to the elementary school nurses, even if students' exposure and sensitivity to the chemicals has not changed. In order for the argument to hold, the author must assume 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. Choice (C) looks good.
Quote:
Perhaps the cleaners ARE commonly used in houses and apartments, but we don't care about WHERE the students were exposed to the chemicals. If exposure has increased, whether at school or at home, then the author's argument would be valid. The author does not say that exposure has increased AT THE SCHOOLS, so choice (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
We are trying to explain an increase in the PROPORTION of students sent to the nurses, not an increase in the TOTAL NUMBER of students sent to the nurses. Thus, an increase in the number of students or the proportion of the population attending elementary schools does not matter. We need to explain the increase in the PROPORTION sent to the nurses for those allergic reactions. Choice (E) is not a required assumption and can be eliminated.
Choice (C) is the best answer.
gmatsuperstar
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V32
Posts: 12
30 Sep 2012, 03:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question Stem
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Assumption Question- Ask the question - what is required so that the conclusion is true. Also use the negation test on last 2 option choices.
Argument
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 school children 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.
Pre-thinking
More children became aware of the symptoms and reported the same. So they were sent to the nurses.
Answer Choices
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
INCORRECT ANSWER - This answer could have been correct if the argument did not mention "PROPORTION". Even if the nurses reduced, the proportion calculation would still remain the same -
\(\frac{No of students sent}{Total no of students}\)
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
INCORRECT ANSWER - "other substances" is outside the scope of the argument
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.
CORRECT ANSWER - If the chance that children are sent to the nurse is same, then the conclusion is true.
Negation Test - 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 - So this statement rules out both the options in the conclusion. So this is the CORRECT ANSWER.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
INCORRECT ANSWER - If not used commonly then the chemical may not be a reason. It weakens the conclusion.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.
INCORRECT ANSWER - "larger proportion of Renston’s population" - this does not matter. The argument is not talking about this but the proportion of students sent to nurses.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Assumption Question- Ask the question - what is required so that the conclusion is true. Also use the negation test on last 2 option choices.
Argument
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 school children 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.
Pre-thinking
More children became aware of the symptoms and reported the same. So they were sent to the nurses.
Answer Choices
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
INCORRECT ANSWER - This answer could have been correct if the argument did not mention "PROPORTION". Even if the nurses reduced, the proportion calculation would still remain the same -
\(\frac{No of students sent}{Total no of students}\)
B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
INCORRECT ANSWER - "other substances" is outside the scope of the argument
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.
CORRECT ANSWER - If the chance that children are sent to the nurse is same, then the conclusion is true.
Negation Test - 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 - So this statement rules out both the options in the conclusion. So this is the CORRECT ANSWER.
D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
INCORRECT ANSWER - If not used commonly then the chemical may not be a reason. It weakens the conclusion.
E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.
INCORRECT ANSWER - "larger proportion of Renston’s population" - this does not matter. The argument is not talking about this but the proportion of students sent to nurses.
General Discussion
22 Feb 2009, 11:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
nitindas
IMO 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'- is the assumption so try to negate this statement and negation will hurt 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'
In this case more children are sent to the nurse therefore the incidences are reported more and allergic reactions has not increased significantly.
