It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 02:36

### 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 schools

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 37

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: LBS '18, IE April '17
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2016, 01:51
Hi

I do not understand the explanation completely. I could not pick any options and also cannot fathom why the right answer is C. It is given that nurses report higher proportion of children who are being sent but in C it is mentioned that no. of allergic children are not likely to be sent to nurses. Therefore this implies that earlier the number of children sent were more so how can argument assume that as per report the proportion of allergic children sent increased as even with the ratio (no. of allergic children/total children) if as per C no. of allergic children sent were less then proportion is also low. Kindly clarify how the answer is justified.
_________________

Give kudos and appreciate if you think its worthwhile

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 37

SC Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1507

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2016, 06:13
Exposure to certain chemicals --> allergic reactions in some children.
Nurses report that the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them for treatment has increased significantly over the past ten years.

Conclusion: 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.

Possible Assumptions:
1. The grounds on which the school children were diagnosed remains the same.
2. School children did not visit the nurses more frequently than they do now.

A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years. - Incorrect - We are concerned about the school children's visit to the nurses and not on the number of nurses.

B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

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 - This is in line with our reasoning.

D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago. - Incorrect - We do not know how school children to Renston's population ratio affects the stated conclusion. Out of context.

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 40 [1], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2016, 02:03
1
KUDOS
Negate A.
The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has decreased over the past ten years.
Now assume that Total no of student remain same over ten years.
No. of student sent to one nurse will increase for sure because there is a decline in nurses available hence the proportion increases. And conclusion will fall apart, which state only two reasons.

But if collectively all the nurses report this, then there is no effect. I am not sure, pl somebody confirm.

Kudos [?]: 40 [1], given: 342

SC Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1507

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2016, 03:23
Negate A.
The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has decreased over the past ten years.
Now assume that Total no of student remain same over ten years.
No. of student sent to one nurse will increase for sure because there is a decline in nurses available hence the proportion increases. And conclusion will fall apart, which state only two reasons.

But if collectively all the nurses report this, then there is no effect. I am not sure, pl somebody confirm.

Hi,

You are misinterpreting the conclusion. The stated 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".

Negating A does not invalidate the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2016, 21:27
Vyshak wrote:
Negate A.
The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has decreased over the past ten years.
Now assume that Total no of student remain same over ten years.
No. of student sent to one nurse will increase for sure because there is a decline in nurses available hence the proportion increases. And conclusion will fall apart, which state only two reasons.

But if collectively all the nurses report this, then there is no effect. I am not sure, pl somebody confirm.

Hi,

You are misinterpreting the conclusion. The stated 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".

Negating A does not invalidate the conclusion.

That's what I am saying
I am just asking if my interpretation of A is right or wrong. In other words, why it is incorrect. or what if I change it to "a nurse", how will it effect the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 342

SC Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1507

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2016, 21:51
Vyshak wrote:
Negate A.
The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has decreased over the past ten years.
Now assume that Total no of student remain same over ten years.
No. of student sent to one nurse will increase for sure because there is a decline in nurses available hence the proportion increases. And conclusion will fall apart, which state only two reasons.

But if collectively all the nurses report this, then there is no effect. I am not sure, pl somebody confirm.

Hi,

You are misinterpreting the conclusion. The stated 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".

Negating A does not invalidate the conclusion.

That's what I am saying
I am just asking if my interpretation of A is right or wrong. In other words, why it is incorrect. or what if I change it to "a nurse", how will it effect the conclusion.

Can you please state the premise and conclusion and explain your reason behind eliminating C?

Kudos [?]: 1220 [0], given: 895

Intern
Joined: 06 May 2016
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 110

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

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2016, 03:59
I agree with abrakadabra not able to understand why A is wrong?
Experts,
Can you please explain the rational behind A not being correct? thanks!

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 110

Board of Directors
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2839

Kudos [?]: 958 [0], given: 69

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2016, 11:21
geek_mnnit wrote:
I agree with abrakadabra not able to understand why A is wrong?
Experts,
Can you please explain the rational behind A not being correct? thanks!

Ok, before we discuss your point. Tell me one thing, does negating A breaks the conclusion or the Premise.

Once, you will get the answer to this question, you will understand why A is wrong.

Remember : Assumptions when negated shatters the conclusion.
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

Kudos [?]: 958 [0], given: 69

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3219

Kudos [?]: 3622 [1], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2016, 11:25
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
geek_mnnit wrote:
I agree with abrakadabra not able to understand why A is wrong?
Experts,
Can you please explain the rational behind A not being correct? thanks!

The passage does not state that the number of students reporting PER NURSE has increased - it states that the PROPORTION OF STUDENTS reporting has increased. Therefore it does not matter, how many nurses are there. Hence A is wrong.

Kudos [?]: 3622 [1], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 89

Schools: HBS '16
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#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

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 89

Intern
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 89

Schools: HBS '16
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2016, 10:47
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

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 89

SC Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1507

Kudos [?]: 1220 [1], given: 895

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2016, 19:27
1
KUDOS
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

In this particular question, option C invalidates the original conclusion by providing an alternate reason.

Conclusion: 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.

Negate option C: 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 negated statement means that the children are not sent to nurses because of increased exposure to chemicals or increased sensitiveness but are just more likely to be sent to nurses now than 10 years ago when they exhibited allergic reactions.

Kudos [?]: 1220 [1], given: 895

Director
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 787

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 275

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

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2016, 05:50
Premise: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as cleaners or pesticides causes allergic reactions in some children.
Premise: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

SCHOOL CHILDREN WITH ALLEGIC REACTION………….HAVE INCREASED
THEREFORE, EXPOSURE TO GREATER QUANTITIES OF CHEMICALS……OR…….SENSITIVITY HAS INCREASED.
1) According to the argument there are no other reasons that could have increased the number of students sent for treatment.
2) Also the number of students have remained same
3) The students just go to the elementary school nurses for treatment
Let’s look at the choices:
A. The number of school nurses employed by Renston’s elementary schools has not decreased over the past ten years.
The argument does not talk about the number of students sent to EACH nurse but talks about the TOTAL number of students. INCORRECT.

B. Children who are allergic to the chemicals are no more likely than other children to have allergies to other substances.
Allergies to other substances is OUT OF SCOPE.

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.
This is the CORRECT choice. If we negate this statement: 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.

D. The chemicals are not commonly used as cleaners or pesticides in houses and apartment buildings in Renston.
OUT OF SCOPE

E. Children attending elementary school do not make up a larger proportion of Renston’s population now than they did ten years ago.

OUT OF SCOPE
_________________

Help me make my explanation better by providing a logical feedback.

If you liked the post, HIT KUDOS !!

Don't quit.............Do it.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 275

Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2015
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 109

GPA: 3.92
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2016, 22:23
Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but A is wrong because the question stem uses the phrasing "proportion of students sent to the nurse" and not "number of students seen by each nurse." A could be correct if the question stem used the latter.

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 109

Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 113

GPA: 3.9
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2017, 17:20
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.
Here in the question stem when the elementary school nurses clearly report the proportion of schoolchildren sent to them has increased how can the assumption be not more likely to be sent to school nurse?
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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 113

Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1254

Kudos [?]: 1352 [0], given: 440

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

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2017, 06:34
joemama142000 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.

OG2017, CR635, P536

CONCLUSION : 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.

(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.

GMATNinja & GMATNinjaTwo Upon negating the answer choice (C), I found out that (C) does NOT weaken the conclusion but instead similar to the author's conclusion. Could you help to elaborate in details?
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Kudos [?]: 1352 [0], given: 440

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1088

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 562

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2017, 07:10
IMO C
Option A tells that the number of nurse has been constant , but they have received more number of allergic students.
This increase is due to increase in the number of enrollment of the students.
Option B does not help either as it talks about allergies to other substances.
Option D also does not tells about the quantity of allergic substance or the children becoming more sensitive.
Option E actually is negation of the argument .
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 562

Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2012
Posts: 174

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 143

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Copenhagen, ESMT"19
GPA: 3.75
WE: Consulting (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2017, 01:24
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. If we negate this nurse argument will fall
(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.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 143

Intern
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 6

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

Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2017, 10:22
In the passage it 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.

In Option 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.

As per option C , less number of children reporting to nurses now compared to the number of reporting 10 years back , so obviously rate of reporting should be decreased. But the passage depicts opposite picture.

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

Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 4

Location: India
Schools: ISB '19 (I)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V41
GPA: 3.55
Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2017, 04:47
1
KUDOS
The conclusion of the argument 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". So we have to assume that there can't be any other reason for the increase in the proportion of children sent for treatment other than these reasons.
Hence C is the right answer as if "students are more likely to be sent to a school nurse now than they were ten years ago", it maybe a reason for the increase.

Kudos [?]: 2 [1], given: 4

Re: Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools   [#permalink] 09 Jun 2017, 04:47

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6    Next  [ 111 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by