Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 11:19

### 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

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

Track

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 90
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 03:59
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

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

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

A. It establishes 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 accpeting Choi's claim.
E. It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is suficient to determine that the event will occur.

If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 357 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 04:10
E. It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is suficient to determine that the event will occur.
- I'll take E. Hart mistakes what is nescessary for an event (children will get doctorate if parents hold doctorates) with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur. Choi's statemetns merely show that sufficiency.
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 363
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 04:40
I would go for C.

it says: Over 70% of all doctorate holders, which means that
30 percent have parents with a doctorate.
So if we had 10 doctorates, 3 would have had parents with a doctorate.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 217
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 04:41
E,
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 357 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 04:42
I'll stick to E. Just like to experiment with this answer choice
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1810
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 08:22
I would go with E here.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 484
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Choi and Hart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2005, 11:44
E

Hart uses a BUT, that indicates the answer is E, because probably a small proportion of people with doctorate produces 30% childern who earn doctorate, compared to the rest of the population that produces only the remaning 70%
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 90
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2005, 02:16
OA is C, macca got it spot on with the explanation, although I'm still baffled by it.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 484
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2005, 03:47
Decibel wrote:
OA is C, macca got it spot on with the explanation, although I'm still baffled by it.

When somebody uses BUT to reply to a statement IMO it can only mean they are not consistent with what is said before...

Consider this:

Howdy: I am from Texas

Bubba: BUT, i thought you were from down south...

yes we all know the reply is consistent with Howdy, but it can also be infered that bubba does not know Texas is down south, so in his opinion he thought Howdy was form some other part of the world....

In the same note, in this question the replying guy fails to recognise the statistical profoundity of the statement and thinks what he says is inconsistent with what the first guy said....that is what the answer should be....
_________________

Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 357 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2005, 09:26
ranga41 wrote:
Decibel wrote:
OA is C, macca got it spot on with the explanation, although I'm still baffled by it.

When somebody uses BUT to reply to a statement IMO it can only mean they are not consistent with what is said before...

Consider this:

Howdy: I am from Texas

Bubba: BUT, i thought you were from down south...

yes we all know the reply is consistent with Howdy, but it can also be infered that bubba does not know Texas is down south, so in his opinion he thought Howdy was form some other part of the world....

In the same note, in this question the replying guy fails to recognise the statistical profoundity of the statement and thinks what he says is inconsistent with what the first guy said....that is what the answer should be....

Yes, the 'but' does seem a little strange to put in a conversation when you're in agreement with someone else.

Its a little like:

Mangaer: You need to work harder
Me: But yes, I agree I need to work harder.

If you agree with the manager that you're slacking off a little, you wouldn't use 'but' would you?
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2005, 10:57
hi mecca,
i'm still not able to able to understand your logic..
fine that 3 out of 10 doctorates have their parents as doctorates...doesn't that mean 7 out of 10 docs have parents who are not doctorates..
doesnot that weaken choi's statement....
can some one explain this to me...i'm totally confused..

Krishna
Manager
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 138
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2005, 13:59
While I chose B at first...E is begining to make sense after reading explns....However, how would you parallel choice E with the stimulus:

E. It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is suficient to determine that the event will occur.

necessary for an event vs. sufficent that the event will occur -> ? vs. ?

Anyone?
_________________

Thanks!

Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Choi and Hart [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2005, 19:16
The answer is C.

The quick explanation: P(A|B) is different from P(B|A)

Intuitive explanation:

7 doctorate holders do not have a parent who holds a doctorate
3 doctorate holders do have a parent who holds a doctorate

What if in the entire world, there are only 10 families in which a parent holds a doctorate, and 1000 families in which a parent does not hold a doctorate?

Then Choi's claim still holds true. 30% of the families with a parent holding a doctorate have a child holding a doctorate, and only 0.7% of families with a parent not having a doctorate have a child holding a doctorate
Re: CR: Choi and Hart   [#permalink] 04 Sep 2005, 19:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
35 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 13 Jun 2013, 03:48
3 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 9 22 Aug 2010, 23:28
6 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 22 23 May 2010, 18:31
1 Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 09 Nov 2008, 02:48
65 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 68 19 Jul 2008, 06:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.