Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Jan 2017, 11:41

### 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
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

# 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

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 997
Location: Singapore
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 747 [1] , given: 36

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2010, 21:48
1
This post received
KUDOS
Both the speakers are talking about two different groups.

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. >>> lets say Choi talks about 30% of the people which Hart ignores.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. >>> Hart talks about those 70% of people which Choi ignores.

Both speakers may be correct.

rohinipathi wrote:
I think it is B
Because, if the statement is true, it makes choi's statement fault.

How is the statement consistent with Choi's Claim?
It is "more likelly" v/s stats against "more likely" - Does anybody see consistency here??
Pls, somebody explain..

_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 441
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 112

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2010, 00:42
nusmavrik wrote:
The bottom line is whenever there is a scope shift - both the speakers are not contradicting each other. So they are consistent with each other.

do you have few more questions like this one in your kitty ?

regards
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 441
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 112

TOMMY pls explain this ps: CR - are these questions common ? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2010, 00:46
perfectstranger 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.
(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.

Could you explain in a detailed way please?
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 225
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 289 [0], given: 16

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2010, 09:12
perfectstranger 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.
(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.

Could you explain in a detailed way please?

got it completely wrong, thought was B
Kaplan 800 book explains the answer very well....
OA should be C
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2010, 11:11
I chose C because they don't conflict each other.
Is it the same with consistent?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 83

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2010, 13:52
perfectstranger 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.
(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.
HI Perfectstranger,

The bolded part is the key. Choi is making a hypothetical statement--if all else is equal, then having parents is an advantage. Hart is making an empirical statement: he is discussing reality, in which all else isn't equal, and so his final results differ. This is entirely consistent with Choi's claim, since Hart is shifting the scope of the discussion from the theoretical to the practical.

Note that, in addition to the scope shift, a number/percent error may be present in Hart's claim. Take a look at ashah20's post for a great explanation. As is often the case on the GMAT, there are multiple ways to get to the correct solution!
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Manager Joined: 04 Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Followers: 2 Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 15 Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink] ### Show Tags 31 Aug 2010, 13:58 IMO C Manager Joined: 16 Mar 2010 Posts: 184 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 9 Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Sep 2010, 01:27 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. Here choi is clearly claim is clear. Now when hart says over 70% doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds doctorate, means that.... Here is the real magic read on.... means that 30% doctorate holders have parents that holds doctorate... However from the overall population, normally graduation rates are less then 25.... if you just take the ratio... very few people have doctorate... so... he is consistant with Choi's statement CONSIDER GIVING ME KUDOS IF YOU AGREE WITH MY OPENION... Manager Joined: 27 Jul 2010 Posts: 197 Location: Prague Schools: University of Economics Prague Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 15 Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Feb 2011, 16:05 Source of this q: Kaplan Higher Score. This question is terrible. _________________ You want somethin', go get it. Period! Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 644 Location: Cambridge, MA Followers: 83 Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 2 Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Feb 2011, 19:05 craky wrote: Source of this q: Kaplan Higher Score. This question is terrible. Hi Craky, Sorry this problem is frustrating to you--but I think I did a fair job of explaining why the correct answer is correct! Can you explain what the confusion is about this question? Thanks! Eli _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 197
Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 15

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2011, 01:31
Hi Eli,

thank you for reply. It´s no good to try to solve CR questions in 2a.m..
Anyway, now in the morning I realized a little difference, which I did not see before.

When reading the above question, it is quite obvious that the aswer should be B.

However, the question I tried to solve in Kaplan yesterdey is:

Which of the following would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?

Answer (B): Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns doctorate or not.

This one caused my confusion. Could you please comment on that?

KapTeacherEli wrote:
craky wrote:
Source of this q: Kaplan Higher Score.
This question is terrible.

Hi Craky,

Sorry this problem is frustrating to you--but I think I did a fair job of explaining why the correct answer is correct! Can you explain what the confusion is about this question?

Thanks!

Eli

_________________

You want somethin', go get it. Period!

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 189
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 20

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2011, 08:16
C as nusmavrik said, both speakers are not contradicting each other.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 83

Kudos [?]: 276 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2011, 11:33
Craky,

We occasionally re-use the same CR stimulus with a different question. The GMAT does this as well, albeit rarely, so we think it's best to give students practice focusing on different ways of analyzing the same prompt. Unfortunately, it sounds like you're getting mixed up between the questions--sorry for the confusion!

That said, the version of the question you are getting stuck on is definitely a high-difficulty problem. I posted an explanation here:
cr-from-kaplan-test-94716.html
Take a look at my reasoning there, so I don't clog the forum with reposts; if you're still having trouble, let me know and I'll do my best to clarify.

Good luck!
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 38

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2011, 11:38
Tough one. Liked ashah20 and KapTeacherEli explainations.
_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MGMAT 6 650 (51,31) on 31/8/11
MGMAT 1 670 (48,33) on 04/9/11
MGMAT 2 670 (47,34) on 07/9/11
MGMAT 3 680 (47,35) on 18/9/11
GMAT Prep1 680 ( 50, 31) on 10/11/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CR notes
http://gmatclub.com/forum/massive-collection-of-verbal-questions-sc-rc-and-cr-106195.html#p832142
http://gmatclub.com/forum/1001-ds-questions-file-106193.html#p832133
http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-prep-critical-reasoning-collection-106783.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6-0-awa-my-guide-64327.html?hilit=chineseburned

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 21

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2011, 07:40
i can say it was hard Question.. after reading everyone explanation., I also agree to C

Thanks everyone
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 103
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2011, 08:00
perfectstranger 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.
(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.

Could you explain in a detailed way please?

So, Why other Options are Wrong? Can you please post the official Explanation?
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 27

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2011, 07:59
A really weird question all-in-all.

There likely won't be an official explanation, since it is from 1000 CR.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 133
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 12

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 12:58
What would you rate this question? The wording makes it very difficult for me.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 75 [1] , given: 27

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 07:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
I'd say it's a 600-level question, reason being, there isn't much that you would analyze here. Choi claim says are likely whereas Hart's claim is reassuring. So I firstly think the answer itself is a bit vague.

If Hart is stating that 70% of the children who go on earn doctorates did not have parents who are doctorate holders, and Choi is stating that most children who have parents who are doctorate holders, how can it be consistent?

70% is a large percentage. It's more than half the demographic in consideration. Is 30% enough to attribute likelihood? I tend to differ.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 133
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 12

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 15:07
petrifiedbutstanding wrote:
I'd say it's a 600-level question, reason being, there isn't much that you would analyze here. Choi claim says are likely whereas Hart's claim is reassuring. So I firstly think the answer itself is a bit vague.

If Hart is stating that 70% of the children who go on earn doctorates did not have parents who are doctorate holders, and Choi is stating that most children who have parents who are doctorate holders, how can it be consistent?

70% is a large percentage. It's more than half the demographic in consideration. Is 30% enough to attribute likelihood? I tend to differ.

Thanks. I was thinking it would be at least 650 due to the wording.
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard)   [#permalink] 11 Sep 2011, 15:07

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 69 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
35 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 13 Jun 2013, 03:48
1 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 16 21 Jul 2011, 17:03
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
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®.