|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Status: ISB, Hyderabad
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 177
WE 1: 4 years Software Product Development
WE 2: 3 years ERP Consulting
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 15
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
 23 Aug 2010, 00:28
Question Stats:
13% (03:12) correct
86% (01:01) 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 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.
_________________
-AD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[1] , given: 36
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
23 Aug 2010, 01:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
The first rule of gmat - apples cannot be compared with oranges. They have different points and there is no contradiction. Hart's reply is a scope shift. Hence E is ruled out. E. Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence. -----> Hart does not support Choi. Also does not contradict Choi. If they both are correct then B is left. Mechanically I can put their replies @ 90 degree so one thing has no bearing on the other.
_________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 179
WE 1: 3 (Mining Operations)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[1] , given: 33
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
23 Aug 2010, 06:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
Its a good question. I believe, if they were conversing, it would be like : Hart: Hey !!!..70 % is negative..How you are correct. Choi: Read my sentence Man : All factors being equal !!!...Now if Parental education is rarely affecting the education of Child, I am not responsible. If you make all factors equal, and make my "Parental Education" as prime One, then I am sure....the babies are Noble Winners 
_________________
Regards,
Invincible...
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 102
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 1
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
23 Aug 2010, 09:26
B!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 20
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
23 Aug 2010, 21:23
nusmavrik wrote: The first rule of gmat - apples cannot be compared with oranges.
They have different points and there is no contradiction. Hart's reply is a scope shift. Hence E is ruled out.
E. Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence. -----> Hart does not support Choi. Also does not contradict Choi.
If they both are correct then B is left. Mechanically I can put their replies @ 90 degree so one thing has no bearing on the other. @nusmavrik Surely B supports Hart's assertion. But how does that support Choi as he mentions that parental education does play a role. please advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[1] , given: 36
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
24 Aug 2010, 01:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
Choi uses the word "more likely" - which is just a possibility. Can you predict the future? Not with certainty. That's the catch. Most importantly - did you get that Hart's reply was scope shift? Hard did not contradict Choi. rohitgoel15 wrote: nusmavrik wrote: The first rule of gmat - apples cannot be compared with oranges.
They have different points and there is no contradiction. Hart's reply is a scope shift. Hence E is ruled out.
E. Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence. -----> Hart does not support Choi. Also does not contradict Choi.
If they both are correct then B is left. Mechanically I can put their replies @ 90 degree so one thing has no bearing on the other. @nusmavrik Surely B supports Hart's assertion. But how does that support Choi as he mentions that parental education does play a role. please advice. _________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 20
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
24 Aug 2010, 10:05
Thanks nusmavrik. Kudos for U
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 226
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 11
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
25 Aug 2010, 03:53
Didn't concentrate and pick E.
Should be B by simple POE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 111
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
25 Aug 2010, 10:24
had trouble with that one. thanks for OA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 472
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 24
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions [#permalink]
07 Sep 2010, 01:16
Nice one!! Foxed me.
_________________
Kidchaos
http://www.laptopskinvault.com
Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheLaptopSkinVault
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/LaptopSkinVault
Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Kaplan CAT: What Explains both the speakers's assertions
[#permalink]
07 Sep 2010, 01:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
Vithal |
14 |
29 Apr 2005, 01:15 |
|
|
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
Decibel |
12 |
02 Sep 2005, 04:59 |
 |
|
|
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
Matador |
6 |
03 Apr 2006, 18:43 |
|
|
12
|
 |
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
perfectstranger |
55 |
19 Jul 2008, 07:53 |
|
|
1
|
|
Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents
|
prasun84 |
11 |
09 Nov 2008, 03:48 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
