3 ms·
Well, it doesn't tell us the false negative rate. But the problem doesn't seem to involve negative results at all, so I'm not sure that's relevant. I would say
by sp332 4y ago
Well, it doesn't tell us the false negative rate. But the problem doesn't seem to involve negative results at all, so I'm not sure that's relevant. I would say it's 70% from the first test plus 20% of the remaining 30% from the second test, so 76% total.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoEdit: Nevermind, probability is hard. Feels like the number of kids tested who had the gene is important as that would affect the numbers returned even for a random intervention. Still think it can't be far from the expected rate, but no idea how to quantify it exactly.
- sp332 4y agoYes, good point. That is something missing from the problem description.