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.
2. 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?
Ahh, now I can see why option C is the answer.
Since Choi said "more likely", it means that he is open to the suggestion that his claim may not happen. So when Hart is saying that Choi's claim didn't happen, well it is still aligned to Choi's claim because Choi never claimed that his expectation WILL happen or 100% certain. Choi is aware that he could be wrong as well. Maybe that's what it is. The more extreme is Choi's argument, the easier you can argue that Choi is wrong if your claim is true. However, the more mild is Choi's argument, the more difficulty you will face in saying that Choi was wrong. Because when the argument or conclusion is mild, you're including the other possibilities for your conclusion not to be true in a more subtle way. so when Hart told Choi that he was wrong, well Choi did include that possibility by giving a mild conclusion.
Even If I say that I have a 99% chance that I will pass an exam, even if I fail, my claim is still consistent because I left 1% possibility that I could fail and that's what happened. Had I said that I am 100% sure that I will pass, but then I failed, THEN my claim would be inconsistent or wrong!
Option E's logic is reversed from what really happened. Option E says that Hart understood Choi's claim to be a possibility rather than certainty, something that is completely opposite because Hart actually thought that Choi was certain about Choi's claim.
Last edited by tarek99 on Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:43 am, edited 17 times in total.
Assume that of a population of 100 parents, 10% have children with PhDs. So there are 10 PhDs. (10% is reasonable because the number of PhD in a population is low, probably around 2%)
Hart's statement tells us that 3 of the 10 have parents who hold Phds and the other 7 do not.
Thus Hart's statement proves Choi's statement (that PhDs are more likely to have children that have PhDs)
The chance that a person without a PhD has a child with a PhD is 7/90
The chance that a person with a PhD has a child with a PhD is 3/10
* by the way, when one say something is more likely, it means that past data has shown that this claim to be true. i.e if I said, it is more likely that hurricanes follow a period of hot weather, it means that hurricanes have occurred more often after a period of hot weather than after a period of normal weather.
Last edited by ashah20 on Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.
As i have mentioned in the earlie post that the key lies to realise that CHOI is talking about the people who are going to earn doctrate but at presen they are not and as we might see that choi is talking about the entire group of people ie entire population. if after this we look at the answer choices we may find hat C is the best option By A She is not establishing the argumet to be exagerate By B she is not proving the argument to be wrong as she is not targeting it By D She is not even providing an alternative explaination Choi's claim E whatever I hope this answers your concern
while hart is talkin about the people who are already doctrate so it doesnt essentially means that she is disagreeing.
perfectstranger wrote:
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.
_________________ Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working AB
The key to the problem is not that Choi and Hart are talking about different groups of people. Choi is also talking about people who earn doctorates; when he says 'are more likely to earn doctorates', this does not refer to an event in the future.
Hart also does not confuse necessary and sufficient conditions in his response. What Hart says is neither necessary nor sufficient to refute Choi. E is not correct.
The point is that Hart's argument does not contradict Choi's statement. If only a small number of parents hold doctorates, both Choi and Hart could be entirely correct. That is, their statements are perfectly consistent, in the intended sense of being 'logically consistent': they can both be true. C.
"2. 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."
_________________ Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing. Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 Posts: 1090 Location: New Delhi Followers: 8
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.
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.
_________________ Do visit my b-school and GMAT Prep blog and let me know if you think I can benefit from any information: http://tincandigest.blogspot.com/
2. 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?
_________________ Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working AB
Because Choi said that children whose parents earned doctorates are MORE LIKELY to earn a doctorate. Choi never said that this will SURELY happen. By saying "more likely", Choi gave room for the possibility that his speculation may not always be true or may not always happen. In option E:
E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
Hart misunderstood Choi's argument to mean that Choi's speculation will ALWAYS HAPPEN. That's what option E says. Another point that I would like to add is that Choi is trying to make a speculation about a possible outcome in the future. Hart is talking about the results right now.
As i have mentioned in the earlie post that the key lies to realise that CHOI is talking about the people who are going to earn doctrate but at presen they are not and as we might see that choi is talking about the entire group of people ie entire population. if after this we look at the answer choices we may find hat C is the best option By A She is not establishing the argumet to be exagerate By B she is not proving the argument to be wrong as she is not targeting it By D She is not even providing an alternative explaination Choi's claim E whatever I hope this answers your concern
while hart is talkin about the people who are already doctrate so it doesnt essentially means that she is disagreeing.
perfectstranger wrote:
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.
How can the option E be "whatever"? Are you trying to negotiate your response to be inline with the OA? Can you explain how C is the correct answer?
When the Choi & Hark are actually talking about 2 different groups (one whoes children are prospective doctorates & the other who are already doctorates) how can they be in agreement?
No it is not like that E is comparing the two things which according to my reasoning is not possible as i have expained that two are talking about the different platforms so we cannot say Hart is contradicting CHOI and if you look at the argument correctly one may realize that she is not evaluating CHOI satement which E points out..........that is why i choose C which one cannnot contradict
Vemuri wrote:
apurva1985 wrote:
As i have mentioned in the earlie post that the key lies to realise that CHOI is talking about the people who are going to earn doctrate but at presen they are not and as we might see that choi is talking about the entire group of people ie entire population. if after this we look at the answer choices we may find hat C is the best option By A She is not establishing the argumet to be exagerate By B she is not proving the argument to be wrong as she is not targeting it By D She is not even providing an alternative explaination Choi's claim E whatever I hope this answers your concern
while hart is talkin about the people who are already doctrate so it doesnt essentially means that she is disagreeing.
perfectstranger wrote:
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.
How can the option E be "whatever"? Are you trying to negotiate your response to be inline with the OA? Can you explain how C is the correct answer?
When the Choi & Hark are actually talking about 2 different groups (one whoes children are prospective doctorates & the other who are already doctorates) how can they be in agreement?
_________________ Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working AB
I don't think I am in agreement. Lets paraphrase the statements for the sake of clarity. Choi is saying that "most children whose parents are already doctorates are likely to earn doctorates". Hart says that "most of the doctorate holders don't have parents who hold doctorates". Option A --> completely ruled out. There is nothing pointing to exaggeration. Its an extreme situation. Option B --> Not relavent Option C --> Its like comparing apples to oranges. Its not consistent with what Choi is claiming. Option D --> Its not an alterative reason. Ruled out. Option E --> Hart mistook Choi's statement & provided a statement that is not consistent with Choi's. This according to me is the right answer.
2. 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.No, it does not negate Choi's claims in anyway B If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. C It is consistent with Choi's claim.Is it not inconsistent 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?
Only C stands for me. Besides this can NOT be GMAT argument. I dont blieve GMAT arguments work like this.
I agree they are consistent because Choi begins with 'All other factors equal...' while Hart is talking about current doctorates where obviously other factors come into play. Therefore, there is no reason to believe they are inconsistent - in reality different factors come into play.
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing. Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 Posts: 1090 Location: New Delhi Followers: 8
Search
FEBWed
Register
Login | Unanswered | Active topics | Tags list by forum
Oldest
