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.
Ps select this psace for OA & my doubts: OA is A. Okay A is assumed here â€˜coz some donors might be filtered for carrying other infections in their blood, hence total will be less than 10%. But what is wrong with E? If same donor frequency isnâ€™t assumed than even A doesnâ€™t holds further. Thanks
The question could have been more interesting, without OA staring at me like this
In this argument the concern is about whether about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood. We are not bothered about frequency of their supply. Hence not E.
It is A because, Donors carrying NANB hepatitis are not caught through other screening tests, and they keep donating the blood. These donors are part of donor pool. The focus is the number/percentage of donors. Not their frequency of donation.
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.