Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 21 Oct 2016, 02:24

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 250
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 280 [4] , given: 29

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

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 07:53
4
KUDOS
22
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

27% (02:38) correct 73% (01:09) wrong based on 1117 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 687 [18] , given: 1

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:39
18
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
perfectstranger wrote:
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 20 Jul 2008, 03:43, edited 17 times in total.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 404

Kudos [?]: 1435 [5] , given: 4

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 23:28
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I only agree with mbawaters above.

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."
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [3] , given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2010, 16:31
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

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 28 Aug 2010, 13:27, edited 4 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 225
Location: Pune
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [2] , given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 09:57
2
KUDOS
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

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

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 687 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 08:18
1
KUDOS
I say that the answer is E.

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.

What's the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 39 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 22:32
1
KUDOS
perfectstranger wrote:
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.
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 687 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2008, 03:35
1
KUDOS
Read my 4th or 5th post behind. I've just edited it and highlighted it bold. I think that's what makes option C correct.
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: 21

Kudos [?]: 707 [1] , given: 36

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2010, 22:48
1
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: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 69 [1] , given: 27

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 08:35
1
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

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 69 [1] , given: 27

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 00:23
1
KUDOS
KapTeacherEli wrote:
Hi folks,

Excellent reasoning and critical thinking from all of you! Unfortunately, I'm afraid I need to be the bearer of bad news: its not (E).

(E) can be ruled out straightaway, in fact, simply by use of the word 'but' in the second half of the prompt. The two pieces of evidence are, at least superficially, contradictory; it's not correct to say Hart is supporting Choi.

That said, cano's reasoning was absolutely correct: the two statements aren't actually contradictory. There's not reason that both Hart and Choi's statements couldn't be true. Why is that?

The giveaway is in Choi's statement: All other factors being equal, doctoral parents predispose children to becoming doctors. Well, who's to say everything is equal? Choi is discussing the abstract, while Hart is providing statistic of what actually happens, in the real world where all isn't equal.

Thus, we can explain away the difference in the two statements. Parental influence is a factor in advanced education (so Choi is right) but it may not be a very important factor, one that can be overridden (resulting in Hart's statistics). (B), then, explains why both positions are factually correct.

Hope this helps!

I saw this in another post of the same question. I think this settles the dispute.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 82

Kudos [?]: 265 [1] , given: 2

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

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 14:04
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
dpvtank wrote:

Ok folks, I understand why option C is correct. I was struggling between C & E.

I had picked E, but when I tried to understand why it was wrong...I had no idea. Here's why: I have no idea what option E is saying! The whole necessary/sufficient thing is really making my head buzz. It seems like LSAT terminology, because I haven't really come across any questions with that sort of terminology in OG12 or VOG2.

Which of the following sentence makes more sense:

Joey does not have nails or a hammer, so Joey cannot build a house.
Joey has nails and a hammer, so Joey can build a house.

The first one is solid but the second one seem iffy, right? Well, that's what E is saying. To build a house, you must have a hammer and nails; they are necessary tools to complete the process. But in addition to hammer and nails, you need lumber, paint, ladders, screws, electrical wiring, pipes, and siding. A hammer and nail are not sufficient to build a house, not by a long shot! And the second statement above mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient one, so it is flawed.

However, as discussed above, neither Hart nor Choi make such a flawed premise; in fact, both of their statements are logically consistent. So choice (E), which describes a common reasoning flaw not present in this prompt, is wrong.
_________________

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

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

Kaplan Reviews

Last edited by KapTeacherEli on 31 Aug 2013, 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 225
Location: Pune
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 07:59
Te answer is C as it

perfectstranger wrote:
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

Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 225
Location: Pune
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 08:11
I think the Key to solve this question is to realize that both are talking for the differrent group of people

Choi is talkin about the group of people who are going to be doctrate
_________________

Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working
AB

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 250
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 29

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 09:15
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 10:18
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

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?
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 225
Location: Pune
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 10:24
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

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

Intern
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 12:02
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.

Can someone please explain how C is the OA?
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 687 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2008, 03:02
what's the source of this question?
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 250
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 29

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2008, 03:19
1000 CR
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Re: CR-Diologue (very hard)   [#permalink] 20 Jul 2008, 03:19

Go to page    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, 04:48
1 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 16 21 Jul 2011, 18:03
3 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 9 23 Aug 2010, 00:28
5 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 22 23 May 2010, 19:31
1 Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 09 Nov 2008, 03:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by