|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
14 Apr 2024, 11:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conc: Therefore, about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB-contaminated blood.
Did 10% of actual donors not get filtered or still supply contaminated blood?
(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed. If this is true, it does support the conclusion that blood donors who don't get filtered out end up passing on the infection. Let's negate to check -"Most donors with hepatitis carry other infections that are reliably screened and routinely checked." If that's the case then, the number of donors supplying contaminated blood will be much less than 10%, i.e. ,weakens the conclusion on negation. Keep
(B) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, develop the disease themselves at any point. Whether the donors develop the disease themselves or is transferred to them by someone, doesn't give us the indication on the % of actual donors with the infection not getting filtered out. Drop
(C) The estimate of the number of donors who would be disqualified by tests for NANB hepatitis is an underestimate. - Premises can't be challenged. Even if they can, this does undermine the conclusion, hence not a required assumption. Drop
(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large. The population at large could've 15%, 20% or even higher incidence of hepatitis, however, that doesn't help us solve for the % of infected patients not filtered out. Drop
(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors. Frequency of supply doesn't matter. Conclusion is focused on the number of patients who don't get filtered out. Drop
Did 10% of actual donors not get filtered or still supply contaminated blood?
(A) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, carry other infections for which reliable screening tests are routinely performed. If this is true, it does support the conclusion that blood donors who don't get filtered out end up passing on the infection. Let's negate to check -"Most donors with hepatitis carry other infections that are reliably screened and routinely checked." If that's the case then, the number of donors supplying contaminated blood will be much less than 10%, i.e. ,weakens the conclusion on negation. Keep
(B) Donors carrying NANB hepatitis do not, in a large percentage of cases, develop the disease themselves at any point. Whether the donors develop the disease themselves or is transferred to them by someone, doesn't give us the indication on the % of actual donors with the infection not getting filtered out. Drop
(C) The estimate of the number of donors who would be disqualified by tests for NANB hepatitis is an underestimate. - Premises can't be challenged. Even if they can, this does undermine the conclusion, hence not a required assumption. Drop
(D) The incidence of NANB hepatitis is lower among the potential blood donors than it is in the population at large. The population at large could've 15%, 20% or even higher incidence of hepatitis, however, that doesn't help us solve for the % of infected patients not filtered out. Drop
(E) The donors who will still supply NANB-contaminated blood will donate blood at the average frequency for all donors. Frequency of supply doesn't matter. Conclusion is focused on the number of patients who don't get filtered out. Drop
AditiDeokar
Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 87
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 298
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26 INSEAD MiM '26 ESADE Imperial ISB '26 ESADE HEC Sept '26 IE INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q77 V77 DI74 
GPA: 3.5
Schools: NUS ESSEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiF '26 INSEAD MiM '26 ESADE Imperial ISB '26 ESADE HEC Sept '26 IE INSEAD Jan '26
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q77 V77 DI74
Posts: 87
Kudos:
21
06 Jan 2026, 04:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Experts, why can't the answer be C as that would also lead to a change in percentage right, similar to A?
06 Jan 2026, 05:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
abhi758
Correct answer: A
Why A is required
The conclusion says about 10 percent of actual donors will still supply NANB contaminated blood even after screening. That only follows if the donors who slip past the new NANB test are not being filtered out anyway by other routine screening tests. If many NANB carriers also test positive on other reliable screens, then a lot of them would still be disqualified, and the 10 percent figure would be too high. That is exactly what (A) rules out.
Why the others are wrong
B: Whether carriers later develop the disease has nothing to do with whether they donate contaminated blood.
C: Saying the 5 percent disqualification estimate is an underestimate goes against the argument. If more people are disqualified, fewer contaminated donors would remain, not support the 10 percent claim.
D: Comparing donors to the general population is irrelevant. The conclusion is about the donor pool, not the population at large.
E: The conclusion is about the percent of donors who still supply contaminated blood, not how often they donate. Donation frequency would matter only if the claim were about the percent of blood units contaminated.
