Hoozan wrote:
The Bolostus minatosis virus is usually fatal to humans unless treatment begins within the seven-day incubation period of the virus. A doctor can administer a blood test that will identify with 99 percent accuracy whether someone has contracted the virus, but the blood sample must be sent to a laboratory for analysis, a process that requires four days to complete. A new testing device analyzes a breath sample to identify the presence of the virus, and it performs the analysis instantaneously. Clearly, replacing the traditional blood test by making the breath analysis device available in all doctors' offices would reduce the number of fatalities caused by the B. minatosis virus.
The answer to which of the following questions would be LEAST useful in evaluating the claim made in the argument above?
(A) What proportion of people contracting B. minatosis undergo testing within three days of contracting the virus?
(B) What proportion of people contracting B. minatosis survive if they receive treatment during the incubation period of the virus?
(C) Is any specialized knowledge or training required to operate the breath analysis device or interpret its analysis?
(D) How accurate is the breath analysis device in identifying people who have contracted the B. minatosis virus?
(E) Does the survival rate for the virus depend on how soon within the incubation period a patient receives treatment?
The virus is fatal if detected after 7 days.
If detected within 7 days, the person may survive.
Blood test takes 4 days (so the person needs to get it done within first 3 days to survive)
A new test gives result instantaneously.
Conclusion: Replacing the blood test by making the breath analysis device available will reduce fatalities.
What will not help evaluate this claim (will fatalities reduce if the new test is made available in doctor's offices?)
(A) What proportion of people contracting B. minatosis undergo testing within three days of contracting the virus?
This will help evaluate the claim. If 100% people already undergo testing within 3 days (because say they are educated about the rare circumstances that leads to contracting the virus), then making the new test available will not reduce fatalities. If a low percentage of people come in the first 3 days and many come in the first 7 days, then the test will save lives.
(B) What proportion of people contracting B. minatosis survive if they receive treatment during the incubation period of the virus?
We are given that there is a survival rate if treatment begins in 7 days. This survival rate is greater than 0%. Now whether it is 10% or 80%, does it matter? 'Some' lives would be saved in either case.
(C) Is any specialized knowledge or training required to operate the breath analysis device or interpret its analysis?
This will help in evaluating whether lives will be saved. The argument claims that making the device available will save lives but if specialised training is required, docs & nurses may not be able to use the device even if it is available. If no specialised training is required then it may save lives.
(D) How accurate is the breath analysis device in identifying people who have contracted the B. minatosis virus?
This will help in evaluating whether lives will be saved. If the breath analyser is only 25% effective say, then the 99% effective blood test might give better results regarding number of lives saved.
(E) Does the survival rate for the virus depend on how soon within the incubation period a patient receives treatment?
This too will help in evaluating whether lives will be saved. If the survival rate does depend on how soon treatment is given, the instant test is likely to save lives.
Answer (B)
close
23 Mar 2022, 05:05
56%
(02:13)
wrong 
