Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 01 Mar 2017, 13:13

### 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

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

# Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 11:36
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 12:05
prasannar 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.

Tough one, but I came down to A or E, someone explain.
Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3384
Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 286 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 12:17
A for me..

basically says there is no other way for us to detect these hep-b carriers...if for instance A was true the the whole argument falls apart.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 12:37
I will go for E. If the donors will not donate blood at the average frequency then the numbers wont make to 10% of the donors.

Can you please provide the OA
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 798
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 13:12
E.

We have to assume the test would not discourage people with NANB hepatitis to continue donate the blood. Thus maintain a 10% rate.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Earth
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 15:04
E for me too.

there is no mention of other infectious deiseases so I thought A is irrelevant ? Is that fair conclusion regarding A?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 315
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 16:24
prasannar 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.

I go for A. My reasoning below:

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. ( Very clearly assumed. The give away here in my opinion is the constant use of the word NANB hepatitis. The screening is to check for NANB and no other disease because the medics believe that any other infections will have been treated and detected so screening for NANB will be the only screening taking place. If they did carry other infections then it will be very ignorant of the staff to screen for just NANB.
(B) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, develop the disease themselves at any point. ( Irrelevant to the argument, if they did it will not affect the argument. It's argument is not based around how they developed the disease)
(C) The estimate of the number of donors who would be disqualified by tests for NANB hepatitis is an underestimate. (This may be true but not assumed here. Even if they are it does not affect the argument.)
(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large. (Population mentioned here is a clue to indicate that this option is out of scope)
(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors. (It may be true but even if they do not donate as much will the argument be affected? Nope) . The argument does not talk about frequency here.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Earth
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 16:56
So you ARE Einstein himself.

Agree with A on second thoughts. It IS better option than E
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1925
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1052 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 21:13
C

A is a trap
_________________
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 22:57
OA is A
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1925
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1052 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2008, 23:24
prasannar wrote:
OA is A

Can you explain A in a simpler way? I still not get it!
_________________
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 170
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2008, 00:37
guys, can anyone tell me why it´s not E ?

thanks!
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 434 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2008, 18:28
Sondenso,

I opted for E and was surprised to see OA-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 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.-> other infections seem to be irrelevant

(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.-> irrelevant

(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large.->irrelevant

(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors-> The donor pool is intact thus seems to be apt, I picked E
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2008, 07:06
Well OA does make sense now.
Re: CR: Blood NANB   [#permalink] 07 Apr 2008, 07:06
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB 7 10 Feb 2009, 05:15
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB 13 06 May 2008, 06:10
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB 3 22 Dec 2007, 10:44
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB 8 10 Jul 2007, 10:10
Blood banks will shortly start to screen all donors for NANB 10 08 Jun 2007, 21:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by