>>11641465>None are needed.Well, obviously they are as it's otherwise ambiguous. You're given an (effectively) infinite range of values from which to choose the specificity and sensitivity.
The one that makes the most "sense" in the context of the problem, and the one that makes the least assumptions, is that the test's accuracy is simply independent of the health of the person being tested.
Consider this: your assertion would hold true if you randomly tested people from the entire population, but what if you tested the same person repeatedly? With your spread of false results, after repeatedly testing the person, the resulting accuracy would not be 99%.
With the assumption that the specificity and sensitivity are both 99%, however, it doesn't matter if you test one person repeatedly or a random person, or anything inbetween; the accuracy will always trend towards 99%.
>How is one "likely" and the other "ridiculous"? They are equally arbitrary.See above.
>So either you are talking about a topic you lack a basic understanding of, or you're trolling. Can you clarify which it is?Neither; it's making due with an imperfect question and choosing, out of all reasonable possibilities, the assumptions that are simplest.
