Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 30 Sep 2016, 14:06

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR3-7

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

CR3-7 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2004, 20:11
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Explainations
Attachments

c19.JPG [ 165.09 KiB | Viewed 1379 times ]

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2004, 20:13
I don't like this question. Please endeavour with solid explaintation.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 01:13
I'll say E. I'll explain if right.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 05:17
Yeah Only E makes sense. I look forward to Paul's explanation.

Hi Paul,

It is sunday!! Shouldn't you be outside your home???

- Anand.
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 09:24
Guys try again little hard this time.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 10:40
This is a tough one. I would go with A then. If the 5% screened ones were screened because they had AIDS instead of NANB(although they carried both diseases), then it means that had that 5% carried ONLY NANB, they would/could not have been detected. The test would be futile. In other words, it ensures that the 5% screened out were screened out because the NANB was detected. I think this should be it.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Location: Dallas Texas
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 14:44
my take on this one is E - based on the assumption that - if NANB donors will donate at an average frequency as all the donors.

From Evidence E- say there are 100 prospective donors if 2/3rd of NANB are missed then 1/3rd of NANB will be 5. (Are you with me). so
1/3 * NANB = 5 therefore actual NANB caught are 15. and the remaing are donors = 85

Now the conclusion C says - 10% of actual donors will still supply NANB ie 10% of 95 then the remaing donors are 95 - 9.5 ~ 85

All this can happen if the average frequency of donors is constant and we should be able to link the evidence with the conclusion.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 15:15
Let me play the devil's advocate

What if the 1/3 who are caught also have AIDS, a disease which can be caught with "reliable testing procedures", as A says? Now, let's take 15 persons who ONLY have NANB. Can we ascertain that the test will now be able to screen out that 5%, or 1/3 of NANB infected donors? (A) certainly casts doubt on the test result and we have to ascertain that the 5% screened out in the first place had ONLY NANB and nothing else.

Upon thinking about it again, the frequency of donation really does not matter since we are more concerned about the numbers of donors. All the given statistics are about the number of donors notwithstanding how frequently they give blood. Even though a NANB donor comes twice to give blood, he will be counted as two persons and will be part of the statistics already. This happens because even though he shows up twice, each and every time, the test has to be performed again (who knows what might happen in between the two donations )
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 728
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 21:10
Bhai what is the official answer?

When I first looked at this problem, my first choice was A, after reading other posts I got confused. I think A makes sence because in order to come up with exact statistics, presumed condition must exist all the time. In this case no other test should disqualify anybody who would be qualified as donars by the new test.
_________________

Praveen

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 414
Location: Lungi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2004, 22:19
only B makes sense (2/3 of the donors still carry NANB disease).

rgds,
batli
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2004, 08:41
I disagree with Paul's explanation for this.

The stem is talking about blood banks which will screen for NANB hepatitis. I believe all the prospective donors will be tested. There is nothing about tests on people with AIDS mentioned. Even though Paul's reasoning is correct I believe it is too much to assume given the scope of the argument.
The argument should start with a statement saying all kinds of screening test on the donors will be done instead of saying just NANB hepatitis screening is done.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2004, 09:04
I am not assuming anything here Anandnk. I'm just trying to cast doubt into the author's conclusion. AIDS was just an example, it could have been with just any other disease. Author merely says that screening tests will eliminate 5% of all donors. Can we know for sure that those 5% eliminated were not eliminated because they also had other diseases instead of having ONLY NANB? By knowing that those NANB infected had one and only disease, NANB, only then can we say that the tests were effective and hence, the conclusion. Since the author did not mention that it was NANB tests which were performed, it could have been a general test which could have detected other diseases instead of NANB. We HAVE to know then that those screened out were ONLY NANB infected. I think I'm repeating myself here
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 218
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2004, 08:03
Straightforward A

Again the same technique: the opposite of A weakens the argument

From the stem we can conclude that 2/3 of donors will supply NANB contaminated blood (10% is a distraction here). This claim is invalidated by the opposite of A: if donors infected with NANB often carry other infections, the tests for those infections will disqualify these donors and thus reduce the share of bad donors

E is not good. We are talking about THE NUMBER of donours, not the number of times they donate blood. Hence, FREQUENCY is totally irrelevant

I like your questions, Bhai. They look like ETS (except Erich Schnitzler of course :)
[#permalink] 13 Jul 2004, 08:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR3-7

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.