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.

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...

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.
_________________

Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

[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.

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.



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]

One more vote for E.
Good explanation ykaiim

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

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

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

This had to be a super hard question given that so many, even me (or is it I) voted for E.....