Exposure to peanuts in any form causes an allergic reaction in many ch

Hello,

Firstly this question is just a replica of official guide 13th edition CR question 106. So, I just request you to please check OG also.

Analysis:

Premise 1:

Peanuts causes allergy in many children's

Premise 2:

Doctors report NT (children's allergic to peanuts) > NDB (children's allergic to peanuts) {NT: Number today; NDB: Number decade back}

Conclusion:

Reason behind "premise 2" is either increased exposure to peanuts products or increased sensitivity of children's (I would call the later receptivity)

What could be the possible assumptions (unstated premise) here:

1. There could be improved detection procedures to detect allergy:
In case case even if the number of allergic children's are same but since now detection increased so NT (children's allergic to peanuts) > NDB (children's allergic to peanuts)

2. What if the parents are more concerned now than they were decade ago and hence they report all the cases:
Again in this case NT (children's allergic to peanuts) > NDB (children's allergic to peanuts)

There could be other assumptions also. But now if you see that choice (C) is perfectly aligned with our assumption 2. So C is correct answer.

Hope it helps.

Regards
Vikas

Official Explanation

In an assumption question such as this, you should be thinking about alternative explanations for this conclusion. In other words, what other circumstances could explain this increase in trips to the doctor other than more exposure or more sensitivity.

Answer choice (C) addresses exactly one such possibility: what if nothing has really changed, but parents are just sending their kids to the doctor more often than they would have before. If that were true, this argument would be very weak: answer choice (C) eliminates that possibility and thus strengthens the conclusion.

The other choices are quite tricky, however, as a few of them seem to address other important assumptions. For instance, if the population had increased dramatically then this argument would also be very weak, as that would explain the increase in trips. (A) plays on this but it says “has not DECREASED” dramatically and is thus a difficult sucker choice. (A) would be correct if it said “has not INCREASED”.

For (B), the number of stores does not affect this argument as it does not necessarily affect availability or number sold. Also, since the conclusion is already addressing increased exposure to peanuts, this assumption would not matter.

(D), like A, is very tricky, as it seems to be correct but it is doing the opposite of what it should. If (D) said: “There IS a reason for the increased number of children being sent for treatment other than increased sensitivity to peanut products” then you would want to look at it more carefully. However, even then it would not matter as the argument gives two possible explanations. For (E) your mind might wander toward this choice because you have read about it in the newspaper, but worry by the parents about developing allergies is not relevant to the argument.

Answer is (C).

Hello GMATNinja hazelnut carcass

I think both C and D are close

Option D says there is another reason for the increased number of children being sent to the hospital. Isn't this option providing an alternate "cause" for the increase. Though the other reason hasn't been explicitly stated,the "increase" does (nonetheless) have a another reason

Doesn't D weaken the conclusion as well?

Let me know your thoughts, thanks

Still not getting why C is correct? If children are not sent to the doctor then what about doctor's report? Both contradict each other.


Sent from my XT1663 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Premise:
Exposure to peanuts in any form causes an allergic reaction in many children. Doctors in the country of Morvonia report that the number of children sent to them for treatment of an allergic reaction to peanut products has increased substantially over the past decade.

Conclusion:
Therefore, children in Morvonia have either been exposed to more peanut products over that time period or they have become more sensitive to the peanut products over that time period.


This is a typical assumption question, where the author assumes that there could not be any other reasons for the cause of this increase. Therefore we could look for an option, which helps us in proving that there are not other causes.

The argument above relies on which of the following questionable assumptions?

(A) The population of children in Morvonia has not decreased substantially over the past decade.
[Out of Scope: We are more concerned with the increase/decrease of children going to doc and not the overall population. Hence this option can be discarded.]

(B) The number of stores selling peanut products in Morvonia has not increased dramatically over the past decade.
[Even if it hasn't, this cannot be the assumption, because it is not only the stores from where children could have got the allergy. There could be other sources too, from where the exposure could have increased.]

(C) Children who have an allergic reaction to peanut products are not more likely to be sent to the doctor than they were a decade ago.
[Let's negate this sentence to understand it more clearly. Children who have an allergic reaction to peanut products are more likely to sent to the doctor than they were a decade ago. This means that say a decade ago, there were 100 children with allergy, but only 30 were sent. But more they are more likely to go, so even now if there are 100 children, 50 would be sent to doctor. This statement shatters the assumption of the doctor that children are more sensitive now or are exposed more. Since this shatters the argument. Option C has to be the assumption. If this assumption that they are not more likely to be sent to the doctors is correct. Then only can we attribute the increase in children allergy to other factors like exposure and sensitiveness, which is the conclusion of the author.]

(D) There is not a reason for the increased number of children being sent for treatment other than increased sensitivity to peanut products.
[This is not an assumption, because this has already been stated in the argument that children are being sent to doc because of increased sensitivity. And in fact this contradicts the conclusion, because the doctor believes that the increase is because of two factors - sensitivity and exposure. Thus, we can discard this option.]

(E) Parents in Morvonia are not more worried today about their children developing peanut allergies than they were a decade ago.
[The conclusion focuses on the cause of the increase in allergy because of exposure and sensitivity and not on how worried parents are today.]

This statement does not weaken it in my opinion. The author has mentioned that there are in fact two reason because of the increase in number of children - sensitivity and exposure. But this statement mentions only one, which is not correct and cannot be the assumption of the author.

Hey,

it is nowhere said that children are not being sent to the doctor. Do read my explanation and let me know if it makes any sense.

GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma mikemcgarry


What exactly am I supposed to do with argument in stimuli as per phrase - questionable assumptions in question stem?
As assumption is always a MUST BE TRUE statement. Why should I question given answer choices.
Even in GMAT / OG ideal phrase is - If given options are true for strengthen / weaken Qs.
Should I skip such Qs since have never such a Q in OG?

Let me know your insights.

I got it correctly in 3 minutes. Timing was an issue because I thought A read population of children has not increased.

Responding to a pm:

Premises:
More children are being sent for treatment of peanut allergy reaction

Conclusion:
Either children are being exposed to more peanut products OR they have become more sensitive

We are assuming that nothing else can explain more children being sent for reactions.
How about "there are more children now" so the percentage of those being sent could still be the same.
Or "home treatments have declined and more cases are being sent to doctors"?

To make our conclusion, we are assuming that these other reasons do not explain the increase in number.
So option (C) is an assumption.
(C) Children who have an allergic reaction to peanut products are not more likely to be sent to the doctor than they were a decade ago.

(A) The population of children in Morvonia has not decreased substantially over the past decade.
Not correct. The assumption is that population of children has not increased substantially.

(B) The number of stores selling peanut products in Morvonia has not increased dramatically over the past decade.
This is a part of conclusion (children are being exposed to more peanut products) hence it is not an assumption.

(D) There is not a reason for the increased number of children being sent for treatment other than increased sensitivity to peanut products.
Not true. We are concluding that another reason could be "children are being exposed to more peanut products"

(E) Parents in Morvonia are not more worried today about their children developing peanut allergies than they were a decade ago.
This talks about parents worrying about children "developing" peanut allergy. This would be phase before allergic reactions and hence out of scope.

I went through all the posts but I still need help on this question.
If I understand it correct, we need to find assumption for conclusion "children are either exposed more to peanut products or they are becoming more sensitive".
If so, I don't know how C is correct. Isn't it actually weakening the conclusion itself?
My question is, if the children (who have allergy) are not likely to be sent (than a decade ago) how can doctors say that the allergic cases are raising?
Shouldn't it be "Children who have an allergic reaction to peanut products are MORE likely to be sent to the doctor than they were a decade ago"?
And coming to D, I believe it states that "Increased number of children are getting treatment for peanut allergy than any other reasons" . Doesn't it hold strong, as based on that doctors clearly conclude that allergy cases has raised?

This is a supporter assumption ,whereas we have found an option in the answer choice , which helps / or supports the conclusion. In other words, I have understood , C is an unstated premise , which helps the conclusion in the Premise.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.