Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Jul 2022, 10:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:25) correct
22%
(01:34)
wrong
based on 215
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
13 Jul 2022, 03:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
phoenix2194
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.
17 Jan 2026, 12:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Explanation
Fairly easy question.
Premise: For the average person needing a transfusion, blood from a relative is more likely to be infected with hepatitis than blood from a blood bank.
Conclusion: 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.
Possible flaw: The premise compares probability a given unit of blood is infected, but the conclusion is about probability the recipient gets hepatitis from the transfusion. Those differ if all blood is screened for hepatitis before use, infected blood gets discarded, so transmission risk might be zero regardless of source.
So if screening is 100% effective, the risk is equal (zero), despite relatives’ blood initially being more likely infected.
A) Specifying relative’s blood doesn’t weaken; if anything, reinforces that some choose riskier source.
B) Says hepatitis infection from transfusion is rare overall; doesn’t break link between higher infection rate in relative’s blood and higher relative risk, could still be higher in relatives even if both rare.
C) Matching blood type irrelevant to hepatitis transmission risk.
D) Blood bank donors are asked about hepatitis history but self-reporting unreliable, infected donors may not know or may lie; plus, relatives presumably also could be asked. Weak, doesn’t ensure safety.
E) Blood is always screened for hepatitis before transfusion means if screening works perfectly, no infected blood is used from any source, so infection risk is same (nil), regardless of initial infection rate. This directly attacks the assumption that higher initial infection rate in relative’s blood leads to higher transmission risk.
Answer: E
Fairly easy question.
Premise: For the average person needing a transfusion, blood from a relative is more likely to be infected with hepatitis than blood from a blood bank.
Conclusion: 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.
Possible flaw: The premise compares probability a given unit of blood is infected, but the conclusion is about probability the recipient gets hepatitis from the transfusion. Those differ if all blood is screened for hepatitis before use, infected blood gets discarded, so transmission risk might be zero regardless of source.
So if screening is 100% effective, the risk is equal (zero), despite relatives’ blood initially being more likely infected.
A) Specifying relative’s blood doesn’t weaken; if anything, reinforces that some choose riskier source.
B) Says hepatitis infection from transfusion is rare overall; doesn’t break link between higher infection rate in relative’s blood and higher relative risk, could still be higher in relatives even if both rare.
C) Matching blood type irrelevant to hepatitis transmission risk.
D) Blood bank donors are asked about hepatitis history but self-reporting unreliable, infected donors may not know or may lie; plus, relatives presumably also could be asked. Weak, doesn’t ensure safety.
E) Blood is always screened for hepatitis before transfusion means if screening works perfectly, no infected blood is used from any source, so infection risk is same (nil), regardless of initial infection rate. This directly attacks the assumption that higher initial infection rate in relative’s blood leads to higher transmission risk.
Answer: E
