It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 23:46

### 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
Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 06:15
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

Location: Hungary

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 06:34
Only A seems good.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 426

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 4

Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 09:07
I'll go with E

If the frequency of donation of infected persons is more than that of the normal persons then obviously the % mentioned in the conclusion will go up. This attacks the conclusion

Cheers,
Unplugged

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 4

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 801

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 10:56
E for me....same reason as unplugged

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 18:13
Straight forward E is the best answer.

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2009, 22:14
OA is A. can anyone explain this?

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 39 [1], given: 3

Location: Hungary

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 03:40
1
KUDOS
If there is screening for other infection and this screening rule out the patients who carry the NANB virus then the percentage can be less than 10%. Hmm, this answer was the only answer which seemed to me an assumption. The answer was not straight forward for me at all.

Kudos [?]: 39 [1], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 05:47
Yes, now it makes much sense.
Thanks zoltan +1

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- screening tests   [#permalink] 11 Feb 2009, 05:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by