phoenix2194
For the average person who needs a transfusion, blood from a relative is more likely to be infected with hepatitis than is blood from a blood bank. Therefore, the risk of contracting hepatitis from a transfusion is higher for people receiving blood from relatives than for people receiving blood from blood banks.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) People receiving blood transfusions often specify that blood from their relatives be used.
(B) Blood transfusions only rarely result in the recipient being infected with hepatitis.
(C) Blood taken from a relative is highly likely to match a transfusion recipient’s blood type.
(D) Donors to blood banks are always asked whether they have ever been infected with hepatitis.
(E) Blood that is to be used in a transfusion is always screened for hepatitis.
Premise - Blood from a relative is more likely to be infected with hepatitis than is blood from a blood bank
Conclusion - The risk of contracting hepatitis from a transfusion is higher for people receiving blood from relatives than for people receiving blood from blood banks.
To weaken the argument, we have to show that the the risk of contracting hepatitis from a transfusion is not higher for people receiving blood from relatives than for people receiving blood from blood banks.
Option E tells us that blood that is to be used in a transfusion is always screened for hepatitis. So there will be no chances to get infected with hepatitis. Chances of contracting hepatitis from relative is not higher in such cases.