HESI Reading Comprehension

Which of these statements cannot be inferred from the attached passage?

An allergy is defined as an “immunological hypersensitivity to a specific external stimulus” or, simply put, an exaggerated response of the immune system to a substance that is foreign to the body. Patients with allergies are called “atopic” or, more popularly, “allergic”. The diagnosis of an allergy is mainly clinical and it can be aided by skin allergy tests and laboratory examinations.

Skin allergy tests are fast, practical, and can be done in an allergy and immunology provider’s office. While skin tests are generally sufficient to confirm a diagnosis, doctors may also request complementary laboratory studies for further confirmation. These blood tests may diagnose an increase in white blood cells or antibodies for common allergy triggers, such as pet dander, grasses, and molds. Blood tests may help confirm or exclude the possibility of an allergy and, consequently, reduce adverse reactions caused by unnecessary medication. A correct diagnosis, along with proper treatment based on the valid results of allergy tests, will help reduce or eliminate the incidence of symptoms and improve the patient’s quality of life.

What is the primary purpose of the accompanying article on smallpox?

Smallpox is one of the most deadly and dangerous diseases affecting the human population across the world. The first recorded epidemic was in 1350 BC during the Egyptian-Hittite war, and it was quite prevalent in the late 1800’s through a large part of the 1900’s. Approximately five hundred million people were infected with the disease prior to its eradication in the 1970’s, with the last case being in Somalia in 1977. Symptoms of infection included excessive bleeding, high fever, delirium, vomiting, and a raised pink rash. Most cases of smallpox ended in death and survivors were often seriously maimed by pock marks, blindness, or infertility. The pain and suffering remained for a lifetime after the disease was gone.

There is no known cure for smallpox, only preventative vaccinations. Because smallpox was wiped out in 1970′s, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) recommended that all countries stop vaccinating for the disease in 1980. This means that today, most young people are not vaccinated against the disease. Because the disease is considered eradicated, the issue of what to do with the remaining government-held vaccines has been an issue of debate. Should the stored vaccines be destroyed since the disease is no longer a concern, or do we keep them in storage for research or in case of an unexpected outbreak? Experts at the Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.) and the World Health Organization have spent an enormous amount of time researching this issue and have given much educated thought to the matter. Reportedly the W.H.O. wants to destroy all vaccines, however some scientists at the CDC feel the destruction could do more harm than good.

The issue of bioterrorism adds another layer of complexity to the issue. In the case of smallpox, just a small amount of the virus released in the air could infect thousands of people in 6-24 hours. If such a disease were used as a weapon, we would obviously want the vaccine available for use. However, the fact that the vaccine still exists allows the use of smallpox for bioterrorism in the first place. If we could be sure all of the vaccine was destroyed, the decision may be a bit easier. But what if the vaccine were only partially destroyed, and the remainder was used by an unfriendly nation?

In this world of global unrest and increasing technology, bioterrorism will come an increasing concern. The smallpox virus could be a serious threat to world health should any nation engage in the act if bioterrorism against an enemy. The question remains: do we run the risk of bioterrorism by continuing to store the medicine for several hundred smallpox vaccinations or do we destroy the vaccine and pray that there is no outbreak of the deadly virus? Because it is unknown at this time if researchers are able to re-create the vaccine, either solution may have permanent consequences.

Which of these claims is not in the accompanying article about smallpox?

Smallpox is one of the most deadly and dangerous diseases affecting the human population across the world. The first recorded epidemic was in 1350 BC during the Egyptian-Hittite war, and it was quite prevalent in the late 1800’s through a large part of the 1900’s. Approximately five hundred million people were infected with the disease prior to its eradication in the 1970’s, with the last case being in Somalia in 1977. Symptoms of infection included excessive bleeding, high fever, delirium, vomiting, and a raised pink rash. Most cases of smallpox ended in death and survivors were often seriously maimed by pock marks, blindness, or infertility. The pain and suffering remained for a lifetime after the disease was gone.

There is no known cure for smallpox, only preventative vaccinations. Because smallpox was wiped out in 1970′s, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) recommended that all countries stop vaccinating for the disease in 1980. This means that today, most young people are not vaccinated against the disease. Because the disease is considered eradicated, the issue of what to do with the remaining government-held vaccines has been an issue of debate. Should the stored vaccines be destroyed since the disease is no longer a concern, or do we keep them in storage for research or in case of an unexpected outbreak? Experts at the Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.) and the World Health Organization have spent an enormous amount of time researching this issue and have given much educated thought to the matter. Reportedly the W.H.O. wants to destroy all vaccines, however some scientists at the CDC feel the destruction could do more harm than good.

The issue of bioterrorism adds another layer of complexity to the issue. In the case of smallpox, just a small amount of the virus released in the air could infect thousands of people in 6-24 hours. If such a disease were used as a weapon, we would obviously want the vaccine available for use. However, the fact that the vaccine still exists allows the use of smallpox for bioterrorism in the first place. If we could be sure all of the vaccine was destroyed, the decision may be a bit easier. But what if the vaccine were only partially destroyed, and the remainder was used by an unfriendly nation?

In this world of global unrest and increasing technology, bioterrorism will come an increasing concern. The smallpox virus could be a serious threat to world health should any nation engage in the act if bioterrorism against an enemy. The question remains: do we run the risk of bioterrorism by continuing to store the medicine for several hundred smallpox vaccinations or do we destroy the vaccine and pray that there is no outbreak of the deadly virus? Because it is unknown at this time if researchers are able to re-create the vaccine, either solution may have permanent consequences.

Which of these statements can be inferred from the second paragraph of the accompanying article on smallpox?

Smallpox is one of the most deadly and dangerous diseases affecting the human population across the world. The first recorded epidemic was in 1350 BC during the Egyptian-Hittite war, and it was quite prevalent in the late 1800’s through a large part of the 1900’s. Approximately five hundred million people were infected with the disease prior to its eradication in the 1970’s, with the last case being in Somalia in 1977. Symptoms of infection included excessive bleeding, high fever, delirium, vomiting, and a raised pink rash. Most cases of smallpox ended in death and survivors were often seriously maimed by pock marks, blindness, or infertility. The pain and suffering remained for a lifetime after the disease was gone.

There is no known cure for smallpox, only preventative vaccinations. Because smallpox was wiped out in 1970′s, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) recommended that all countries stop vaccinating for the disease in 1980. This means that today, most young people are not vaccinated against the disease. Because the disease is considered eradicated, the issue of what to do with the remaining government-held vaccines has been an issue of debate. Should the stored vaccines be destroyed since the disease is no longer a concern, or do we keep them in storage for research or in case of an unexpected outbreak? Experts at the Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.) and the World Health Organization have spent an enormous amount of time researching this issue and have given much educated thought to the matter. Reportedly the W.H.O. wants to destroy all vaccines, however some scientists at the C.D.C. feel the destruction could do more harm than good.

The issue of bioterrorism adds another layer of complexity to the issue. In the case of smallpox, just a small amount of the virus released in the air could infect thousands of people in 6-24 hours. If such a disease were used as a weapon, we would obviously want the vaccine available for use. However, the fact that the vaccine still exists allows the use of smallpox for bioterrorism in the first place. If we could be sure all of the vaccine was destroyed, the decision may be a bit easier. But what if the vaccine were only partially destroyed, and the remainder was used by an unfriendly nation?

In this world of global unrest and increasing technology, bioterrorism will come an increasing concern. The smallpox virus could be a serious threat to world health should any nation engage in the act if bioterrorism against an enemy. The question remains: do we run the risk of bioterrorism by continuing to store the medicine for several hundred smallpox vaccinations or do we destroy the vaccine and pray that there is no outbreak of the deadly virus? Because it is unknown at this time if researchers are able to re-create the vaccine, either solution may have permanent consequences.

According to the attached text, why is there an increasing concern over bioterrorism?

Smallpox is one of the most deadly and dangerous diseases affecting the human population across the world. The first recorded epidemic was in 1350 BC during the Egyptian-Hittite war, and it was quite prevalent in the late 1800’s through a large part of the 1900’s. Approximately five hundred million people were infected with the disease prior to its eradication in the 1970’s, with the last case being in Somalia in 1977. Symptoms of infection included excessive bleeding, high fever, delirium, vomiting, and a raised pink rash. Most cases of smallpox ended in death and survivors were often seriously maimed by pock marks, blindness, or infertility. The pain and suffering remained for a lifetime after the disease was gone.

There is no known cure for smallpox, only preventative vaccinations. Because smallpox was wiped out in 1970′s, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) recommended that all countries stop vaccinating for the disease in 1980. This means that today, most young people are not vaccinated against the disease. Because the disease is considered eradicated, the issue of what to do with the remaining government-held vaccines has been an issue of debate. Should the stored vaccines be destroyed since the disease is no longer a concern, or do we keep them in storage for research or in case of an unexpected outbreak? Experts at the Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.) and the World Health Organization have spent an enormous amount of time researching this issue and have given much educated thought to the matter. Reportedly the W.H.O. wants to destroy all vaccines, however some scientists at the CDC feel the destruction could do more harm than good.

The issue of bioterrorism adds another layer of complexity to the issue. In the case of smallpox, just a small amount of the virus released in the air could infect thousands of people in 6-24 hours. If such a disease were used as a weapon, we would obviously want the vaccine available for use. However, the fact that the vaccine still exists allows the use of smallpox for bioterrorism in the first place. If we could be sure all of the vaccine was destroyed, the decision may be a bit easier. But what if the vaccine were only partially destroyed, and the remainder was used by an unfriendly nation?

In this world of global unrest and increasing technology, bioterrorism will come an increasing concern. The smallpox virus could be a serious threat to world health should any nation engage in the act if bioterrorism against an enemy. The question remains: do we run the risk of bioterrorism by continuing to store the medicine for several hundred smallpox vaccinations or do we destroy the vaccine and pray that there is no outbreak of the deadly virus? Because it is unknown at this time if researchers are able to re-create the vaccine, either solution may have permanent consequences.

Which of these statements cannot be inferred from the attached passage?

(1) The study, published today in Nature Microbiology, holds promise for a new treatment method against antibiotic-resistant bacteria (commonly known as superbugs). (2) The star-shaped structures are short chains of proteins called ‘peptide polymers’, and were created by a team from the Melbourne School of Engineering.

(3) The team included Professor Greg Qiao and PhD candidate Shu Lam, from the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, as well as Associate Professor Neil O’Brien-Simpson and Professor Eric Reynolds from the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences and Bio21 Institute.

(4) Professor Qiao said that currently the only treatment for infections caused by bacteria is antibiotics. (5) However, over time bacteria mutate to protect themselves against antibiotics, making treatment no longer effective. (6) These mutated bacteria are known as ‘superbugs’.

(7) “It is estimated that the rise of superbugs will cause up to ten million deaths a year by 2050. (8) In addition, there have only been one or two new antibiotics developed in the last 30 years,” he said.

(9) Professor Qiao and his team have been working with peptide polymers in the past few years. (10) Recently, the team created a star-shaped peptide polymer that was extremely effective at killing Gram-negative bacteria – a major class of bacteria known to be highly prone to antibiotic resistance – while being non-toxic to the body.

(11) In fact, tests undertaken on red blood cells showed that the star-shaped polymer dosage rate would need to be increased by a factor of greater than 100 to become toxic.

(12) The star-shaped peptide polymer is also effective in killing superbugs when tested in animal models. (13) Furthermore, superbugs showed no signs of resistance against these peptide polymers.

(14) The team discovered that their star-shaped peptide polymers can kill bacteria with multiple pathways, unlike most antibiotics which kill with a single pathway.

(15) They believe that this accounts for the superior performance of the star-shaped peptide polymers over antibiotics. (16) One of these pathways includes ‘ripping apart’ the bacteria cell wall.

(17) While more research is needed, Professor Qiao and his team believe that their discovery is the beginning of unlocking a new treatment for antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

What is the main idea of the attached text?

(1) A research team from the University of Bonn has succeeded for the first time in using light stimuli to stop life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia in mouse hearts. (2) Furthermore, as shown in computer simulations at Johns Hopkins University, this technique could also be used successfully for human hearts. (3) The study opens up a whole new approach to the development of implantable optical defibrillators, in which the strong electrical impulses of conventional defibrillators are replaced by gentler, pain-free light impulses. (4) The Journal of Clinical Investigation has now published the results. (5) Ventricular fibrillation! (6) When the heart muscle races and no longer contracts in an orderly fashion, sudden death often follows due to the lack of blood circulation. (7) In such an emergency, a defibrillator helps to restore normal heart activity by means of intense electrical shocks. (8) In patients with a known risk for these arrhythmia, the prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator is the treatment of choice. (9) If ventricular fibrillation is detected, a pulse of electricity is automatically generated, which normalizes the excitation of the heart muscle and saves the person’s life.

(10) “When an implanted defibrillator is triggered, which unfortunately can also happen because of false detection of arrhythmia, it is always a very traumatic event for the patient”, says the head of the study, Junior-Professor Philipp Sasse of the Institute of Physiology I at the University of Bonn. (11) “The strong electrical shock is very painful and can even damage the heart further”. (12) Therefore, Professor Sasse’s team investigated the principles for a pain-free, gentler alternative. (13) As the scientists have now shown, ventricular fibrillation can be stopped by optical defibrillation.

According to the attached text, what inspired scientists to look for alternatives to the current defibrillators?

(1) A research team from the University of Bonn has succeeded for the first time in using light stimuli to stop life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia in mouse hearts. (2) Furthermore, as shown in computer simulations at Johns Hopkins University, this technique could also be used successfully for human hearts. (3) The study opens up a whole new approach to the development of implantable optical defibrillators, in which the strong electrical impulses of conventional defibrillators are replaced by gentler, pain-free light impulses. (4) The Journal of Clinical Investigation has now published the results. (5) Ventricular fibrillation! (6) When the heart muscle races and no longer contracts in an orderly fashion, sudden death often follows due to the lack of blood circulation. (7) In such an emergency, a defibrillator helps to restore normal heart activity by means of intense electrical shocks. (8) In patients with a known risk for these arrhythmia, the prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator is the treatment of choice. (9) If ventricular fibrillation is detected, a pulse of electricity is automatically generated, which normalizes the excitation of the heart muscle and saves the person’s life.

(10) “When an implanted defibrillator is triggered, which unfortunately can also happen because of false detection of arrhythmia, it is always a very traumatic event for the patient”, says the head of the study, Junior-Professor Philipp Sasse of the Institute of Physiology I at the University of Bonn. (11) “The strong electrical shock is very painful and can even damage the heart further”. (12) Therefore, Professor Sasse’s team investigated the principles for a pain-free, gentler alternative. (13) As the scientists have now shown, ventricular fibrillation can be stopped by optical defibrillation.

According to the attached text, all of these statements are facts except ____.

(1) A research team from the University of Bonn has succeeded for the first time in using light stimuli to stop life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia in mouse hearts. (2) Furthermore, as shown in computer simulations at Johns Hopkins University, this technique could also be used successfully for human hearts. (3) The study opens up a whole new approach to the development of implantable optical defibrillators, in which the strong electrical impulses of conventional defibrillators are replaced by gentler, pain-free light impulses. (4) The Journal of Clinical Investigation has now published the results. (5) Ventricular fibrillation! (6) When the heart muscle races and no longer contracts in an orderly fashion, sudden death often follows due to the lack of blood circulation. (7) In such an emergency, a defibrillator helps to restore normal heart activity by means of intense electrical shocks. (8) In patients with a known risk for these arrhythmia, the prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator is the treatment of choice. (9) If ventricular fibrillation is detected, a pulse of electricity is automatically generated, which normalizes the excitation of the heart muscle and saves the person’s life.

(10) “When an implanted defibrillator is triggered, which unfortunately can also happen because of false detection of arrhythmia, it is always a very traumatic event for the patient”, says the head of the study, Junior-Professor Philipp Sasse of the Institute of Physiology I at the University of Bonn. (11) “The strong electrical shock is very painful and can even damage the heart further”. (12) Therefore, Professor Sasse’s team investigated the principles for a pain-free, gentler alternative. (13) As the scientists have now shown, ventricular fibrillation can be stopped by optical defibrillation.

What is the main idea of the attached passage?

“When animals get sick, they may change their behaviour, becoming less active, for example. The study’s lead author, Patricia Lopes from the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich, says that previous research in wild animals has generally ignored how this change in behaviour may affect social contacts in a group and how, in turn, these changes can impact the transmission of a disease. Sick mice are not avoided, but remove themselves from the group.

To tackle this problem, Patricia Lopes and her colleagues used a novel combination of experimental manipulations of free-living mice, radio frequency tracking of animals, social network analysis and disease modelling. To simulate an infection, mice were injected with lipopolysaccharides (a component of the bacterial cell wall), which results in an immune response and generalized disease symptoms. In a paper published this week in the journal Scientific Reports, the team reveals that sick mice become disconnected from their social groups.

It is known that mice have the ability to detect other sick mice. Therefore, it was surprising to find that the animals in the same social group did not avoid the sick mouse. In fact, they went on interacting with the sick mouse and other mice more or less in the same way as before the experimental infection. “It was the sick mouse that removed itself from the group”, emphasizes Lopes. She suggests that such a change in the behaviour of the sick mouse may protect relatives in the same group from catching the disease, which could be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

Speed and extent of disease spread are greatly reduced.

In a further step, the researchers used mathematical models to predict how an infectious disease would spread considering the changes in behaviour of the sick animals. “When we account for the behavioural changes and how they affect social contacts, we find that the speed and the extent of disease spread are greatly reduced,” says Lopes.”

Referring to the attached passage, each of the following statements are examples of factual statements, except which one?

“When animals get sick, they may change their behaviour, becoming less active, for example. The study’s lead author, Patricia Lopes from the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich, says that previous research in wild animals has generally ignored how this change in behaviour may affect social contacts in a group and how, in turn, these changes can impact the transmission of a disease. Sick mice are not avoided, but remove themselves from the group.

To tackle this problem, Patricia Lopes and her colleagues used a novel combination of experimental manipulations of free-living mice, radio frequency tracking of animals, social network analysis and disease modelling. To simulate an infection, mice were injected with lipopolysaccharides (a component of the bacterial cell wall), which results in an immune response and generalized disease symptoms. In a paper published this week in the journal Scientific Reports, the team reveals that sick mice become disconnected from their social groups.

It is known that mice have the ability to detect other sick mice. Therefore, it was surprising to find that the animals in the same social group did not avoid the sick mouse. In fact, they went on interacting with the sick mouse and other mice more or less in the same way as before the experimental infection. “It was the sick mouse that removed itself from the group”, emphasizes Lopes. She suggests that such a change in the behaviour of the sick mouse may protect relatives in the same group from catching the disease, which could be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

Speed and extent of disease spread are greatly reduced.

In a further step, the researchers used mathematical models to predict how an infectious disease would spread considering the changes in behaviour of the sick animals. “When we account for the behavioural changes and how they affect social contacts, we find that the speed and the extent of disease spread are greatly reduced,” says Lopes.”

What is the purpose of the attached passage?

“When animals get sick, they may change their behaviour, becoming less active, for example. The study’s lead author, Patricia Lopes from the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich, says that previous research in wild animals has generally ignored how this change in behaviour may affect social contacts in a group and how, in turn, these changes can impact the transmission of a disease. Sick mice are not avoided, but remove themselves from the group.

To tackle this problem, Patricia Lopes and her colleagues used a novel combination of experimental manipulations of free-living mice, radio frequency tracking of animals, social network analysis and disease modelling. To simulate an infection, mice were injected with lipopolysaccharides (a component of the bacterial cell wall), which results in an immune response and generalized disease symptoms. In a paper published this week in the journal Scientific Reports, the team reveals that sick mice become disconnected from their social groups.

It is known that mice have the ability to detect other sick mice. Therefore, it was surprising to find that the animals in the same social group did not avoid the sick mouse. In fact, they went on interacting with the sick mouse and other mice more or less in the same way as before the experimental infection. “It was the sick mouse that removed itself from the group”, emphasizes Lopes. She suggests that such a change in the behaviour of the sick mouse may protect relatives in the same group from catching the disease, which could be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

Speed and extent of disease spread are greatly reduced.

In a further step, the researchers used mathematical models to predict how an infectious disease would spread considering the changes in behaviour of the sick animals. “When we account for the behavioural changes and how they affect social contacts, we find that the speed and the extent of disease spread are greatly reduced,” says Lopes.”

According to the attached passage, which of the following behaviors is not linked to illness in mice?