|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of [#permalink]
 20 Feb 2005, 00:01
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Researchers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers’ hypothesis?
A. SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.
B. Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent
contamination with SV40.
C. Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.
D. In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.
E. In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
please explain it, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 399
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I am getting it as C.
If the samples still show the traces of the virus, it supports the fact "however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus" and thus the final conclusion too.
Await OA.
chunjuwu wrote: Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from healthy tissue, contain SV40. SV40 is a monkey virus; however, in 1960 some polio vaccine was contaminated with the virus. Researchers hypothesize that this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers’ hypothesis?
A. SV40 is widely used as a research tool in cancer laboratories.
B. Changes in the technique of manufacturing the vaccine now prevent
contamination with SV40.
C. Recently discovered samples of the vaccine dating from 1960 still show traces of the virus.
D. In a small percentage of cases of mesothelioma, there is no history of exposure to asbestos.
E. In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
please explain it, thanks
_________________
Awaiting response,
Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1582
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 0
|
prefer C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
yes (C) it is..
All other choices are not at all related to Conclusion.
Welcome back Chandra!!
Where have u been??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
C it is
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 648
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Another for C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
One more for 'C'
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1089
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
(C)
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
I'm thinking it is (E): In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
The hypothesis is that the SV40 in the mesotheliomas came from the polio vaccine. If SV40 came from other sources we should be able to find SV40 at least in some samples in Finland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
HongHu wrote: I'm thinking it is (E): In Finland, where the polio vaccine was never contaminated, samples from mesotheliomas do not contain SV40.
The hypothesis is that the SV40 in the mesotheliomas came from the polio vaccine. If SV40 came from other sources we should be able to find SV40 at least in some samples in Finland.
Well choice (E) can make or break the argument.
if (E) is true then the mesotheliomas must have been result of something else. Same reason can be applied to the case of mesotheliomas in US and say that SV40 is not the reason for the disease.
Just that X (mesotheliomas) and Y (SV40) exists may mean thet X caused Y or Y caused X.
I believe choice (E) refutes the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1548
Location: Germany
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
E) !
C) there is no connection to the mesotheliomas => it is too vague
E) the analogy to the disease in finland is stronger
OA ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Hello, guys , OA is C
I'm so honored to pick the same wrong answer with HongHu. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
Oops! :-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
Ok the hypothesis is: this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later.
What (C) shows is: first, the vaccine in 1960 IS contaminated by the virus. Second, the virus is long lived.
It doesn't tell us if the vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas. I know it is a monkey virus but how do we know if the virus couldn't get in human body through some other channels? 
If this answer is not from ETS, I'm not gonna buy it. 
Last edited by HongHu on 19 Mar 2005, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 399
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
'Finland' makes it clearly out of scope.
HongHu wrote: Ok the hypothesis is: this vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas decades later. What (C) shows is: first, the vaccine in 1960 IS contaminated by the virus. Second, the virus is long lived. It doesn't tell us if the vaccine was the source of the virus found in mesotheliomas. I know it is a monkey virus but how do we know if the virus could get in human body through some other channel? :p If this answer is not from ETS, I'm not gonna buy it. _________________
Awaiting response,
Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 589
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is E.
C does not even talk about mesothelioma. I think the OA is wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
