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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
13 Jun 2013, 03:48

2

This post received KUDOS

6

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

28% (02:06) correct
72% (01:16) wrong based on 372 sessions

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply?

(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
14 Jun 2013, 01:18

8

This post received KUDOS

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

Tough question. IMO, C is correct.

The question is: Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply So we need to find an answer that must be true for what Hart replied. Don't be simply lured by signal words such as However, but, what more....... Make sure you understand the full context of the argument.

Choice: Children + parents earned doctorates ==> more likely to earn a doctorate than other children. Hart: Over 70% of all doctorate holders do not have a parent also holds a doctorate.

Example: There are 500 children, 30 children who have parent also hold doctorate. 20 children will earn doctorate ==> probability = 20/30 = 67% 570 other children,only 80 children will earn doctorate ==> probability = 70/570 = 14%

Clearly, Although 80% all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. they are less likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents have doctorates (14% VS 67%)

==> Hart's reply is consistent with Choi.

How about other options. Why they are wrong?

(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. Wrong. Hart did not say Choi exaggerated.

(B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. Wrong. Even Hart's reply is true, Choi's claim can also be true.

(C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. Correct.

(D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. Wrong. There is no alternative reason.

(E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur. Wrong. There are not necessary condition and sufficient condition in the argument. Moreover, Hart's reply is actually not a sufficient condition for Choi's claim.

Hope that helps. _________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
19 Jun 2013, 00:57

I do not quiet get this . If 70% of doctrates do not have doctorate parents ... we are to be bothered about the 30% which have doctorate parents . now the question is as to what percentage of the doctorate parents have doctorate kids(what %age i.e). The data in the question does not address this point at all . I found the information irrelevent.

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
19 Jun 2013, 02:26

1

This post received KUDOS

Hi Ramanujanu,

I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant' - but you could also say that it's consistent - you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi - so both can be true - so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together)

Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai).

Tough one.

James _________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
26 Jul 2013, 03:52

plumber250 wrote:

Hi Ramanujanu,

I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant' - but you could also say that it's consistent - you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi - so both can be true - so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together)

Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai).

Tough one.

James

Sorry for posting so late. I din't quite understand. Though the 2 statements are consistent to a certain degree, I feel that Hart's claim is more exaggerated than consistent i.e., Hart says it is MORE LIKELY, which I assume 50% - 70% cases. But as per Choi's statement, Hart's reasoning is only 30% true !! .. What am I missing / misunderstood here.

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
26 Jul 2013, 08:46

1

This post received KUDOS

ramanujanu wrote:

I do not quiet get this . If 70% of doctrates do not have doctorate parents ... we are to be bothered about the 30% which have doctorate parents . now the question is as to what percentage of the doctorate parents have doctorate kids(what %age i.e). The data in the question does not address this point at all . I found the information irrelevent.

Where did i go wrong ?

arvindsekar wrote:

plumber250 wrote:

Hi Ramanujanu,

I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant' - but you could also say that it's consistent - you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi - so both can be true - so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together)

Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai).

Tough one.

James

Sorry for posting so late. I din't quite understand. Though the 2 statements are consistent to a certain degree, I feel that Hart's claim is more exaggerated than consistent i.e., Hart says it is MORE LIKELY, which I assume 50% - 70% cases. But as per Choi's statement, Hart's reasoning is only 30% true !! .. What am I missing / misunderstood here.

Regards, Arvind

It seems that pqhai has the right idea, but this is not how I came to the correct answer.

Lets try looking at it this way:

"Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate."

Example: Out of 125 parents, 25 hold PhD's and 100 do not

Lets say each parent has one child, and of those 125 children, 85 earn PhD's. If 70% of those 85 PhD holders are children of parents that do not have PhD's, this means that only 60/100 children whose parents do not have PhD's obtain a PhD. Thus, although 70% of PhD holders as Hart claims do not have parents with PhD's, 70% only constitutes 60% of the total population of children who have parents without PhD's. Thus, children of parents that do not have PhD's have a 60% chance of earning a PhD.

It then becomes clear that although the children of PhD holders constitute only 30% of the total number of PhD holders, it is clear that 30% of the 85 children who do earn a PhD from the pool of 125 is equal to 25, which means that 100% of the children of PhD holders earn a PhD in this particular case.

Thus, Hart's claim s consistent with Choi's because even if 70% of children that earn PhD's come from a non-PhD holding household, it is still only 60% of those children that earn a PhD in contrast to 100% of children who's parents have PhD's and constitute only 30% of the total PhD holding population. Thus, C is clearly the best answer.

It seems that the argument is based on the fact that there are far many more parents without PhD's than those with PhD's, thus the use of " All other factors being equal" by Choi seems to be a clue into this fact. "All things being equal" is an idiom that means"if things stay the way they are," a reference to the actual numbers on which the percentages are based and which to an American English speaker may seem more clear. So part of the difficulty of this question seems to derive from understanding this idiom as a clue into the fact that there are far fewer PhD's than people without PhD's because it is only in that context that the play of percentages makes sense. Therefore, Hart's claim is consistent with Choi's.

I hope this clarifies,

Albert

Please visit w w w . g m a t q u e s t i o n s . o r g for help with this and other types of questions with 200+ FREE practice questions with step-by-step expert video tutorials (launching Monday, 7/29/13!)

Last edited by AlbertCA on 30 Jul 2013, 09:48, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
27 Jul 2013, 19:03

AlbertCA wrote:

It seems that the argument is based on the fact that there are far many more parents without PhD's than those with PhD's, thus the use of "All things being equal" by Choi seems to be a clue into this fact. "All things being equal" is an idiom that means"if things stay the way they are," which to an American English speaker may seem more clear. So part of the difficulty of this question seems to derive from understanding this idiom as a clue into the fact that there are far fewer PhD's than people without PhD's because it is only in that context that the play of percentages makes sense. Therefore, Hart's claim is consistent with Choi's.

I think this is a great explanation, but I'd offer a slightly different interpretation of the idiom in the beginning. I think from a statistical standpoint it basically means 'when all other confounding factors are controlled.'

the question again: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

So to offer a less numerically intensive case where these two are consistent, say 60% of phds right now are over 60 years old. They're effectively from a different era where school was far less common, so maybe 70% of all doctorate holders overall have doctor parents because the age pool is skewed towards previous-generation folks.

Now, to the first phrase, one possible implication of "all other factors being equal," since they're talking about "children whose parents," it's possible that they're controlling for age. If they define "chidlren" as, say, 20s, then maybe 80% of kids in their 20s with phds are the kids of doctors. So, if you narrowly define a subset of the overall population--i.e. compare apples-to-apples, you can say that parental education status is a determinant of your own education status. However if "all factors" are not equal (i.e. the FACTOR of age is not equal), and you're comparing "children whose parents are doctors to children whose parents aren't across the whole population, the #s change.

But yeah, the idiom in this instance basically gives Choi the ability to define away any inconsistency he wants with assumptions. Because it specifically says factor, you can assume he's doing some witch-craft with sample selection. Poor Hart doesn't stand a chance in this discussion.

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
30 Jul 2013, 05:11

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

This question is based on statistics so you have to be aware that percents depend on knowing the actual numbers.

Choi says if your parent has a doctorate you are more likely than the rest of the population to earn a doctorate. Hart claims that 70% of doctorate holders do not have a parent with a doctorate. The test writers want you to believe that more likely is related to the 70% but in fact those two are not related numbers. Once you understand that the issue is with the percents then it is time to eliminate wrong answers.

dhruvd wrote:

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply?

(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration.Because the 70% and the most likely are not directly related this cannot be true (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate.This is wrong because if only 100 parents have doctorate degrees then only 100 children are more likely to get them and if 1000 people get doctorate degrees then both claims are true. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim.This is the best answer because there are numbers for which both statements are true, thus the claim is consistent (see answer B for numbers) (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim.Hart's argument attempts to discredit Choi, therefore it does not provide additional information to accept the claim (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.Choi does not mention what is necessary to get a degree, or what is sufficient to get a degreeonly what makes a degree more likely, therefore this statement is not true

_________________

Special offer! Save $250 on GMAT Ultimate Classroom, GMAT Small Group Instruction, or GMAT Liveonline when you use the promo code GCVERBAL250. Or, save $150 on GMAT Self-Prep when you use the code GCVERBAL150. Enroll at www.princetonreview.com

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
16 Oct 2013, 12:55

2

This post received KUDOS

Choi : childrens with doctoral parents more likely to become doctors than childrens with non doctoral parents

Lets say there are - 10 doctoral parents -(50% likely that their children will be doctors)- out of which 5 children doctors. 1000 non doctoral parents - 10% likely - 100 children doctor

total doctoral children = 105 Doctoral children with doctor parents = 5 Doctoral children with non doctor parents = 100

Hart: over 70% doctoral children have parents with no doctoral .

considering above highlighted data - 100/105 is the ratio/percentage of doctoral children with non-doctoral parent ( which is consistent with Hart - ratio is way over 70%).

This is more like a weighted average problem in quant.

Hence Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's . -Jyothi _________________

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
30 Oct 2013, 01:34

1

This post received KUDOS

gmacforjyoab wrote:

Choi : childrens with doctoral parents more likely to become doctors than childrens with non doctoral parents

Lets say there are - 10 doctoral parents -(50% likely that their children will be doctors)- out of which 5 children doctors. 1000 non doctoral parents - 10% likely - 100 children doctor

total doctoral children = 105 Doctoral children with doctor parents = 5 Doctoral children with non doctor parents = 100

Hart: over 70% doctoral children have parents with no doctoral .

considering above highlighted data - 100/105 is the ratio/percentage of doctoral children with non-doctoral parent ( which is consistent with Hart - ratio is way over 70%).

This is more like a weighted average problem in quant.

Hence Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's . -Jyothi

I think your demonstration is really good. The is a main difference between the first claim : "more likely than" and the second claim "the overall percentage or in other terms the number of people"!

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
19 Oct 2014, 07:17

Let's assume: 100 doctorate holders ( 30 with PhDs dads, 70 with non-PhDs dads) All PhDs dad's available = 10 000. ( for the sake of example) Non PhDs dads = all dads - PhDs dads = Millions

Hence, if u compare probability of 30/10 000 with 70/ millions , then u see PhDs dads have more probability according to Harts's numbers. Now let's look at answers

(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. No quite opposite, providing supportive numbers unintentionally

(B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. No Quite opposite ,

(C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. CORRECT ! His numbers are indeed CONSISTENT with Choi's CLAIM

(D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. If this is alternative reason, where is original reason?? We don't have enough reason to accept Choi's claim yet

(E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur. No, Hurt just misinterpreted his numbers to evaluate Choi's claim

So C is the answer

gmatclubot

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
[#permalink]
19 Oct 2014, 07:17

The Cambridge open day wasn’t quite what I was used to; no sample lectures, no hard and heavy approach; and it even started with a sandwich lunch. Overall...

I couldn’t help myself but stay impressed. young leader who can now basically speak Chinese and handle things alone (I’m Korean Canadian by the way, so...