BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

1000 CR test 2 question 19

Expert replies
by magical cook » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:06 pm
Hi,

I thought the answer is B) (cause it focuses on NANB disease rather than other infections) ;However, the correct answer turn out to be A)

Do you know why A is better?

Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB hepatitis. Although the new screening tests are estimated to disqualify up to 5 percent of all prospective blood donors, they will still miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis. Therefore, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed.
(B) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, develop the disease themselves at any point.
(C) The estimate of the number of donors who would be disqualified by tests for NANB hepatitis is an underestimate.
(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large.
(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by rajesh_ctm » Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:48 am
First, let us try to understand what the argument is.

Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB hepatitis.
Ok.

The new screening tests are estimated to disqualify up to 5 percent of all prospective blood donors.
So out of 100 prospective donors, 5 are estimated to be screened.

The new tests will miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis.
So, if they are catching five, they are not able to catch 10 others.

Therefore, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood.
We already saw that 10 out of our 100 have NANB but they are not caught. So far so good.

Now let us see which of the given options are assumptions in this calculation.

(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed.
Well, this is definitely an assumption. If a large percentage of people having NANB also carry other diseases, a large percentage of our 10 people are caught, so our number (10%) does not hold good.

(B) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, develop the disease themselves at any point.
At any point they may develop the disease or may not. How does it affect our calculation? It doesn't.

(C) The estimate of the number of donors who would be disqualified by tests for NANB hepatitis is an underestimate.
Come on, all calculations are based on assumption that estimates are correct. Does any one ever assume that the underlying estimations are incorrect?

(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large.
Never assumed this! We never referred to the population at large while coming up with 10% number.

(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors.
Frequency of donations, out of scope!
Join the discussion

by magical cook » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:26 am
Thanks rajesh for the explanation.

It's more clear that A) is better. But just FYI, my understanding for B) originally was "they may develop NANB hepatitise ven after screen was done and the result was negative." But I think the assumption is too far...
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:42 am
It seems to me that correct one is A.
Join the discussion

by shuvamstriving » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:55 am
OA is A.

It says that If people who are carrying other infections other than blood contaminated NANB hepatitise cannot be detected by other reliable screening tests then the author's conclusion that 10% of actual blood donors will still cupply contaminated blood(because people carrying other diseases are undetected). Thus the conclusion holds true and A is the assumption.

We can also applying the negation technique here.So here it is.

If people carrying other infections are detected by other reliable screening tests then the number of people who will supply blood contaminated NANB hepatitis will be not be there.It is because they will be left out once they are detected carrying other infections.So the author's conclusion that 10% people of actual blood donors will still supply contaminated blood falls apart.

Hope I am clear.

Shuvam
Join the discussion