|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 258
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB [#permalink]
 02 Aug 2004, 02:47
Question Stats:
100% (03:50) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new tests is best supported by the passage above?
(A) The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent.
(B) Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent.
(C) The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly.
(D) The blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down.
(E) The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 399
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: blood donation [#permalink]
02 Aug 2004, 03:23
I think it is C and D.
The first one is between C and E, I believe. However, going by numbers given, I could see that it is an underestimate. Also, I think E is out of scope.
The second is D, I believe. If 5% are disqualified, the blood supplies are likely to go down.
OlegC wrote: 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.
Which of the following inferences about the consequences of instituting the new tests is best supported by the passage above?
(A) The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent.
(B) Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent.
(C) The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly.
(D) The blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down.
(E) The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent.
_________________
Awaiting response,
Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 428
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
1) A
2) D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 399
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Hi MBA,
I think you are right. For (1)A looks a better choice than C. C looks an inference if at all that can be infered from the stem and it does not contribute to the conclusion at all.
It is causal argument and the other cause(that is refuted) as stated in A certainly is a very good assumption.
However, I still feel that A is slightly out of scope because of 'in large number of cases'.
Anyway, awaiting OA.
mba wrote: 1) A
2) D
_________________
Awaiting response,
Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I think it
1. A. If they also have someother infections they may be out because of the screening test available for the other than hepatitis infections
2. D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 296
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
A and D.
The conclusion is that the 10% of active donors will donate contaminated blood. This requires A as an assumption. If we negate A, we see that some of the 2/3 thirds not caught are elminated for another reason, and thus its possible that < 10% active donors give contaminated blood. To see it more clearly, assume disease D occurs with the disease in question, and D is screened at 100% efficiency. No active donors with the disease in question would exist then, far less than the concluded 10%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 258
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
OAs are
1) A
2) D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
