|
Author |
Message |
|
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]
 02 Sep 2005, 04:59
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
Please explain your answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
89
[0], given: 0
|
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: 367
Location: London
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
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: 219
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
E,
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
89
[0], given: 0
|
I'll stick to E. Just like to experiment with this answer choice 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with E here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 491
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Choi and Hart [#permalink]
02 Sep 2005, 12:44
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
|
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: 491
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
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: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
89
[0], given: 0
|
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: 180
Location: Hyderabad
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
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 [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
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: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Choi and Hart [#permalink]
04 Sep 2005, 20:16
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, 20:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
Vithal |
14 |
29 Apr 2005, 01:15 |
 |
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
Matador |
6 |
03 Apr 2006, 18:43 |
|
|
13
|
 |
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
perfectstranger |
55 |
19 Jul 2008, 07:53 |
|
|
3
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
arundas |
9 |
23 Aug 2010, 00:28 |
|
|
1
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
bschool83 |
16 |
21 Jul 2011, 18:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
