Exposure to certain chemicals commonly used in elementary schools as

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?

• 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:


A change to the number of nurses doesn't impact the number of students sent to see the nurses, so (A) can be eliminated.


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.


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.


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.


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.