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

Redeem

blood bank

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:34 pm

blood bank

by annrae » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:07 pm
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.
19. 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.


OA A...why not E?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by camitava » Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:51 am
Hey Guest, this is from Kaplan 800! But I would like to say something here. annrae, now E is saying that donors with NANB contaminated will donate blood with the frequency that other donors do. Right? If it is so, then obviously that new test will not be introduced. Rather about this, the poeple who introduce this new test to check NANB in blood, should not have any idea before-hand. You can say this is a kind of outcome/ statistics or something like that.
Now if the people who introduced the new test, presume that the donors with NANB contaminated blood will not have any other severe infections to spread out. And then only they can introduce the test in the market or so. So A and I am still with it.
Am I clear to explain?
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:48 am
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 28 times

by vishubn » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:30 pm
Still not convinced :( !!

Any more takes one this ??

vishu
KILL !! DIE !! or BEAT my FEAR !!! de@D END!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:26 am
Location: Portland, OR
Thanked: 6 times

by pbanavara » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:22 pm
I went with C ... just did the percentage calculations and the 5% seemed unreal ..

Kaplan 800 ??? I finished that book sometime last week and don't remember seeing this question. Oh well I have the old edition I guess.

- pradeep
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:21 am
Thanked: 27 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:660(

by 4meonly » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:43 am
Happy to say that I marked A :)

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 assumes that only screening for NANB hepatitis can disqualify NANB-contaminated blood. If there were any other test that can disqualify prospective donors, than they will NOT miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis.

(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed.

A directly states this
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by niraj_a » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:39 am
isn't A using outside info here? the stem doesn't mention / care about other infections, and outside info is not allowed on assumption questions.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:03 pm

by duke » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:07 am
4meonly wrote:Happy to say that I marked A :)

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 assumes that only screening for NANB hepatitis can disqualify NANB-contaminated blood. If there were any other test that can disqualify prospective donors, than they will NOT miss two-thirds of donors carrying NANB hepatitis.

(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed.

A directly states this
I agree on this point. Thanks. A should be the one.
Looking for 780~
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:35 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by brb588 » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:20 pm
niraj_a wrote:isn't A using outside info here? the stem doesn't mention / care about other infections, and outside info is not allowed on assumption questions.
The stimulus states that blood will now be screened for something new, a special type of Hepatitis; it doesn't say that blood was never screened for anything before Hepatitis came along. This is not something foreign we are bringing in--we all know universally that blood banks screen their blood for infections. While you can't use what you know from the outside, there are certain concepts that all people know about. This is equivalent to "most grass is green" unless I am told otherwise.

A is saying that you can assume that people with Hepatitis don't have anything else that may show up on other types of screen.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:32 am

by ashley.com » Fri May 13, 2016 2:23 am
Answer A seems to be logical one out of other answer choices
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1