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

It is currently 28 Aug 2014, 19:31

Close

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 02:48
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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% 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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 840
Followers: 3

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 02:53
this must be an LSAT question.

I think the answer is E, mistaken reversal
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 02:57
this one's from the kaplan 800 book.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 04:41
IMO E

Because the first person tries to explain the children of the PHD holders tendencies to get this degree...... not the ordinary people.....
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 05:51
IMO D.

If 70% cases is true for all those doctorate who don't have any doctorate parents, rest 30% follows the rule that is stated by choi. So provides alternate support to choi's claim.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 69 [1] , given: 0

Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 10:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 560
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 10:22
grumpyoldman wrote:
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.

Great Explanation. Kudos +1
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1436
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 10:27
grumpyoldman wrote:
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.


This one was definitely beyond my imagination. I still did not understand the explanation. what confused me more was the total number of students came to 101 as opposed to 100 when we deal with percentages. Any different explanation?
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1579
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 180 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 11:06
Excellent explanation by grumpy. I chose C, but, by the time, I read E, I forgot C and zeroed down on E. However, this explanation has helped understand the context of "necessary/sufficient".
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 18:39
Sorry about the numbers in my explanation; I should have made them add to 100. Use 710 parents without PhDs, and 145 parents with PhDs. This results in 71 children of non-PhD parents earning doctorates, and 29 children of PhD parents. The reasoning and the selected answer remain the same.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 48
Location: New jersey
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 19:02
I chose B "B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's Claim cannot be accurate." .

Because that's what Hart is trying to convey with the additional fact
_________________

Target +700
Life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you gonna get.. :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 234
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR- really good [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2008, 19:48
OA is C :-D

and i dont need to post the OE...grumpy's explanation is better than even in the book... :o
Re: CR- really good   [#permalink] 09 Nov 2008, 19:48
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
18 Experts publish their posts in the topic Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents dhruvd 9 13 Jun 2013, 03:48
4 Experts publish their posts in the topic Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents dixitraghav 20 23 May 2010, 18:31
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents Matador 6 03 Apr 2006, 17:43
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents Decibel 12 02 Sep 2005, 03:59
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents Vithal 10 29 Apr 2005, 00:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.