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

 It is currently 10 Feb 2016, 15:23

### 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:
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [2] , given: 11

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]  23 May 2010, 18:31
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

28% (01:56) correct 72% (01:19) wrong based on 52 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 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

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

Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 1016 [0], given: 40

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  23 May 2010, 21:46
IMO E.

We need to show the case when both Choi and Hart COULD BE CORRECT.

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.

Choi is favouring the higher chances of the results and not confirming that the number will be more.

Hart: But consider this: over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

Hart is not objecting rather he is presenting some facts to support his case.

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

Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
[No mention of external cases in the discussion. Incorrect]

Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
[It somehow supports Hart only. Incorrect]]

Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
No. both have given some facts -
Choi says All other factors being equal
Hart presenets %ages.
Incorrect

One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
It doesn't prove that both could be correct. Incorrect

Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.
Correct This is what we have checked above.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 481
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 10

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  24 May 2010, 10:12
Nothing else suits here except E
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 75
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  24 May 2010, 23:07
ykaiim wrote:
IMO E.

We need to show the case when both Choi and Hart COULD BE CORRECT.

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.

Choi is favouring the higher chances of the results and not confirming that the number will be more.

Hart: But consider this: over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.

Hart is not objecting rather he is presenting some facts to support his case.

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

Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
[No mention of external cases in the discussion. Incorrect]

Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
[It somehow supports Hart only. Incorrect]]

Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
No. both have given some facts -
Choi says All other factors being equal
Hart presenets %ages.
Incorrect

One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
It doesn't prove that both could be correct. Incorrect

Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.
Correct This is what we have checked above.

I believe A is the correct answer.

I not sure on this because it beings in some external influence of aunt and uncle. But in E I feel Choi
with the style of his language and % disapproves the Choi's statement.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 1016 [0], given: 40

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  25 May 2010, 04:12
Do you think (A) supports both of the speakers?

(A) Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.

Most means almost all. Moreover, no indication on external relatives is stated in the passage.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1559
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 392 [0], given: 6

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  27 May 2010, 10:40
my pick is (E).

Hart is supporting Choi.

Choi says that "children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate"

Hart is agreeing to his statement and providing additional facts that 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent (have one parent) that also holds a doctorate.
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 401
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 151 [1] , given: 76

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  28 May 2010, 12:10
1
KUDOS
[quote=]
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 would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?
A. Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
B. Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
C. Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
D. One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
E. Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.[/quote]

Choi: children with doctor parents have more chances to earn a doctorate.
Hart: 70% of doctorate holders don't have parents with doctorate.
Apparently, Hart is challenging Choi's suggestion. Hart seems to contradict Choi with another piece of evidence.
But in reality, Choi and Hart are talking about different situations. The scope of each is different. Choi talks about children of parents with doctorates. If only 2 percent of those children obtained doctorates later in their lives, it would still be true if less than 2 percent of children of parents without doctorates will obtain one.
But Hart talks about people already with doctorate. That's why the 70% is irrelevant to Choi's evidence. Hart could still be right and didn't contradict Choi.
Let's suppose that there are only 20 people in the world with doctorate degrees. If 15 had doctorate-less parents, Hart is right. But that is regardless of the fact that their children could still have more chances of getting a doctorate. Thus, Choi and Hart don't disagree, rather complement each other with different pieces of information.
How do we explain that both are correct?
A. No, nobody talked about other relatives.
B. It's not relevant.
C. Still doesn't explain how both of them are correct.
D. Hart uses percents, but Choi doesn't use raw numbers, therefore is not correct.
E. This explains exactly how both of them are correct.
Manager
Joined: 06 Mar 2010
Posts: 107
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 11

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 10:29
good explanation cano.
I was confused to choose E but now it seems pretty clear.
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 13

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 11:00
Just to add to Cano's post:

Consider a pool of 10 doctorate children and 10 non-doctorate children and correspondingly 20 parents.

Now 7 out of these 10 doctorate children have parents who are not doctorate (from Hart's argument).

So the remaining 3 children have doctorate parents.

Now assume that these three parents ARE THE ONLY PARENTS who have doctorates in the group of 20 parents.

So remaining 17 parents are non-doctorates.

Now we can see - From a pool of 17 non-doctorate parents we have only 7 doctorate children (remaining children will of course be non-doctorates assuming 1 child per parent) and 3 doctorate parents have 3 doctorate children.

So all numbers stack up ---> Doctorate parents have a greater likelihood of having doctorate children AND 70% of children who have doctorates have non-doctorate parents.

cano wrote:
[quote=]
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 would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?
A. Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
B. Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
C. Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
D. One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
E. Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.

Choi: children with doctor parents have more chances to earn a doctorate.
Hart: 70% of doctorate holders don't have parents with doctorate.
Apparently, Hart is challenging Choi's suggestion. Hart seems to contradict Choi with another piece of evidence.
But in reality, Choi and Hart are talking about different situations. The scope of each is different. Choi talks about children of parents with doctorates. If only 2 percent of those children obtained doctorates later in their lives, it would still be true if less than 2 percent of children of parents without doctorates will obtain one.
But Hart talks about people already with doctorate. That's why the 70% is irrelevant to Choi's evidence. Hart could still be right and didn't contradict Choi.
Let's suppose that there are only 20 people in the world with doctorate degrees. If 15 had doctorate-less parents, Hart is right. But that is regardless of the fact that their children could still have more chances of getting a doctorate. Thus, Choi and Hart don't disagree, rather complement each other with different pieces of information.
How do we explain that both are correct?
A. No, nobody talked about other relatives.
B. It's not relevant.
C. Still doesn't explain how both of them are correct.
D. Hart uses percents, but Choi doesn't use raw numbers, therefore is not correct.
E. This explains exactly how both of them are correct.[/quote]
CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2797
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 209

Kudos [?]: 1342 [0], given: 235

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  24 Sep 2010, 03:25
Yes E is correct !! They are not contradicting each other.

3 out of 10 have doctorate parents and 7 do not.

What if out of 100 doctorate parents 99 opt for doctorate? and out of 100 only 49 opt for doctorate? and the population of non-doctorate is greater than that of doctorate?
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Manager
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 158
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 15

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  24 Sep 2010, 18:13
One more vote for E.
Good explanation ykaiim
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2010
Posts: 158
Followers: 2

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

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  13 Jan 2011, 22:31
Because its the only one that summarises the argument..
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 78

Kudos [?]: 224 [1] , given: 2

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  15 Jan 2011, 16:44
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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!
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Director Joined: 21 Dec 2010 Posts: 651 Followers: 12 Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 51 Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink] 25 Apr 2011, 10:05 so what do you mean by 'everything being equal' and how is everything not equal ? _________________ What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 644 Location: Cambridge, MA Followers: 78 Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 2 Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink] 26 Apr 2011, 11:41 Expert's post garimavyas wrote: so what do you mean by 'everything being equal' and how is everything not equal ? Educational opportunities, money, career goals, and numerous other factors could influence a decision to attend a doctoral program far more than parents could. Choi ignores those factors, "All other factors being equal"; Hart, discussing real-world statistics, does not. _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1354
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 10

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  26 Apr 2011, 17:42
Clear E.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 87
Schools: Thunderbird '15
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 8

Re: CR from Kaplan Test [#permalink]  01 Jul 2011, 11:22
It is a Kaplan question ( I got this question in Kaplan's CAT). OA is B. Very subtle.

Choi ---> Children with doctorate parents are more likely to earn doctorate
Hart ---> But 70% of the doctorates' parents are not doctorates

So there is certainly a paradox and the question is asking us to resolve or explain how is that possible?

In resolve the paradox question we can't weaken one possibility over the other. We need to show how both the possibilities are possible.

Lets say,
10 doctorate Parents : 6 doctorate children. (more than 50% are doctorates)
90 non-doctorate Parents : 30 doctorate children (less than 50% are doctorates).

So Choi is correct.

Total doctorate children = 36.
% of doctorate children whose parents are not doctorates : (30 / 36) * 100 = 83%.

So Hart is also correct.

Hence both of them are correct. then the possible explanation would be there may be other factors other than parents' education.

HTH.

Thanks
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 24
Concentration: Strategy, Healthcare
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 53

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]  27 Mar 2012, 15:42
It's a math problem.... consider a 2X2 matrix of joint probability...

Chois is saying that "odds ratio > 1", that is:
(p00*p11)/(p10*p01)>1

Harts is saying that
p01/p11 > 7/3

These two statements can co-exist. No strengthening, no weakening, no mistakes.... Therefore, choice B is correct.

Last edited by thulsy on 27 Mar 2012, 15:47, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Status: schools I listed were for the evening programs, not FT
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 389
Location: United States (VA)
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V32
GMAT 2: 640 Q43 V34
GMAT 3: 660 Q43 V38
GPA: 3.1
WE: Research (Other)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 50

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]  27 Mar 2012, 19:11
This had to be a super hard question given that so many, even me (or is it I) voted for E.....
Current Student
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 195
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [1] , given: 6

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]  01 Apr 2012, 09:27
1
KUDOS
IMO E......

both are talking about different groups....
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents   [#permalink] 01 Apr 2012, 09:27

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
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
1 Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 09 Nov 2008, 02:48
53 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 65 19 Jul 2008, 06:53
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 6 03 Apr 2006, 17:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by