Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 13
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
GPA: 3.4

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Jun 2013, 04:48
5
This post received KUDOS
18
This post was BOOKMARKED
Question Stats:
33% (02:09) correct
67% (01:18) wrong based on 630 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.
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.
Last edited by Zarrolou on 13 Jun 2013, 04:51, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question, renamed the topic.



Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Jun 2013, 02:18
10
This post received KUDOS
1
This post was BOOKMARKED
Tough question. IMO, C is correct. The question is: Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply So we need to find an answer that must be true for what Hart replied. Don't be simply lured by signal words such as However, but, what more....... Make sure you understand the full context of the argument. Choice: Children + parents earned doctorates ==> more likely to earn a doctorate than other children. Hart: Over 70% of all doctorate holders do not have a parent also holds a doctorate. Example: There are 500 children, 30 children who have parent also hold doctorate. 20 children will earn doctorate ==> probability = 20/30 = 67%570 other children, only 80 children will earn doctorate ==> probability = 70/570 = 14%Clearly, Although 80% all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. they are less likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents have doctorates (14% VS 67%) ==> Hart's reply is consistent with Choi.How about other options. Why they are wrong?(A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. Wrong. Hart did not say Choi exaggerated. (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. Wrong. Even Hart's reply is true, Choi's claim can also be true. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. Correct.(D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. Wrong. There is no alternative reason. (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur. Wrong. There are not necessary condition and sufficient condition in the argument. Moreover, Hart's reply is actually not a sufficient condition for Choi's claim. Hope that helps.
_________________
Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.
"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."
Chris Bangle  Former BMW Chief of Design.



Intern
Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 19

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jun 2013, 01:57
I do not quiet get this . If 70% of doctrates do not have doctorate parents ... we are to be bothered about the 30% which have doctorate parents . now the question is as to what percentage of the doctorate parents have doctorate kids(what %age i.e). The data in the question does not address this point at all . I found the information irrelevent.
Where did i go wrong ?



Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 335

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Jun 2013, 03:26
1
This post received KUDOS
Hi Ramanujanu, I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant'  but you could also say that it's consistent  you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi  so both can be true  so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together) Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai). Tough one. James
_________________
Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0
... and more



Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 3

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Jul 2013, 04:52
plumber250 wrote: Hi Ramanujanu,
I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant'  but you could also say that it's consistent  you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi  so both can be true  so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together)
Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai).
Tough one.
James Sorry for posting so late. I din't quite understand. Though the 2 statements are consistent to a certain degree, I feel that Hart's claim is more exaggerated than consistent i.e., Hart says it is MORE LIKELY, which I assume 50%  70% cases. But as per Choi's statement, Hart's reasoning is only 30% true !! .. What am I missing / misunderstood here. Regards, Arvind



Intern
Joined: 24 Jul 2013
Posts: 2

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Jul 2013, 09:46
1
This post received KUDOS
ramanujanu wrote: I do not quiet get this . If 70% of doctrates do not have doctorate parents ... we are to be bothered about the 30% which have doctorate parents . now the question is as to what percentage of the doctorate parents have doctorate kids(what %age i.e). The data in the question does not address this point at all . I found the information irrelevent.
Where did i go wrong ? arvindsekar wrote: plumber250 wrote: Hi Ramanujanu,
I think you've sort of answered your own question. You say it's 'irrelevant'  but you could also say that it's consistent  you've said no where that it contradicts the info given by Choi  so both can be true  so it's consistent. (n.b we're not looking for 'supports' or 'strengthen' we just have to be able to hold both arguments together)
Then go through the other choices and you'll soon see the others are all impossible (reasons given by pqhai).
Tough one.
James Sorry for posting so late. I din't quite understand. Though the 2 statements are consistent to a certain degree, I feel that Hart's claim is more exaggerated than consistent i.e., Hart says it is MORE LIKELY, which I assume 50%  70% cases. But as per Choi's statement, Hart's reasoning is only 30% true !! .. What am I missing / misunderstood here. Regards, Arvind It seems that pqhai has the right idea, but this is not how I came to the correct answer. Lets try looking at it this way: "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."
Example: Out of 125 parents, 25 hold PhD's and 100 do not Lets say each parent has one child, and of those 125 children, 85 earn PhD's. If 70% of those 85 PhD holders are children of parents that do not have PhD's, this means that only 60/100 children whose parents do not have PhD's obtain a PhD. Thus, although 70% of PhD holders as Hart claims do not have parents with PhD's, 70% only constitutes 60% of the total population of children who have parents without PhD's. Thus, children of parents that do not have PhD's have a 60% chance of earning a PhD. It then becomes clear that although the children of PhD holders constitute only 30% of the total number of PhD holders, it is clear that 30% of the 85 children who do earn a PhD from the pool of 125 is equal to 25, which means that 100% of the children of PhD holders earn a PhD in this particular case. Thus, Hart's claim s consistent with Choi's because even if 70% of children that earn PhD's come from a nonPhD holding household, it is still only 60% of those children that earn a PhD in contrast to 100% of children who's parents have PhD's and constitute only 30% of the total PhD holding population. Thus, C is clearly the best answer. It seems that the argument is based on the fact that there are far many more parents without PhD's than those with PhD's, thus the use of " All other factors being equal" by Choi seems to be a clue into this fact. "All things being equal" is an idiom that means"if things stay the way they are," a reference to the actual numbers on which the percentages are based and which to an American English speaker may seem more clear. So part of the difficulty of this question seems to derive from understanding this idiom as a clue into the fact that there are far fewer PhD's than people without PhD's because it is only in that context that the play of percentages makes sense. Therefore, Hart's claim is consistent with Choi's. I hope this clarifies, Albert Please visit w w w . g m a t q u e s t i o n s . o r g for help with this and other types of questions with 200+ FREE practice questions with stepbystep expert video tutorials (launching Monday, 7/29/13!)
Last edited by AlbertCA on 30 Jul 2013, 10:48, edited 2 times in total.



Intern
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 43
GRE 1: 326 Q161 V165
GPA: 3.1
WE: Military Officer (Military & Defense)

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jul 2013, 20:03
AlbertCA wrote: It seems that the argument is based on the fact that there are far many more parents without PhD's than those with PhD's, thus the use of "All things being equal" by Choi seems to be a clue into this fact. "All things being equal" is an idiom that means"if things stay the way they are," which to an American English speaker may seem more clear. So part of the difficulty of this question seems to derive from understanding this idiom as a clue into the fact that there are far fewer PhD's than people without PhD's because it is only in that context that the play of percentages makes sense. Therefore, Hart's claim is consistent with Choi's.
I think this is a great explanation, but I'd offer a slightly different interpretation of the idiom in the beginning. I think from a statistical standpoint it basically means 'when all other confounding factors are controlled.' the question again: 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. So to offer a less numerically intensive case where these two are consistent, say 60% of phds right now are over 60 years old. They're effectively from a different era where school was far less common, so maybe 70% of all doctorate holders overall have doctor parents because the age pool is skewed towards previousgeneration folks. Now, to the first phrase, one possible implication of "all other factors being equal," since they're talking about "children whose parents," it's possible that they're controlling for age. If they define "chidlren" as, say, 20s, then maybe 80% of kids in their 20s with phds are the kids of doctors. So, if you narrowly define a subset of the overall populationi.e. compare applestoapples, you can say that parental education status is a determinant of your own education status. However if "all factors" are not equal (i.e. the FACTOR of age is not equal), and you're comparing "children whose parents are doctors to children whose parents aren't across the whole population, the #s change. But yeah, the idiom in this instance basically gives Choi the ability to define away any inconsistency he wants with assumptions. Because it specifically says factor, you can assume he's doing some witchcraft with sample selection. Poor Hart doesn't stand a chance in this discussion.



Princeton Review Representative
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 161

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Jul 2013, 06:11
This question is based on statistics so you have to be aware that percents depend on knowing the actual numbers. Choi says if your parent has a doctorate you are more likely than the rest of the population to earn a doctorate. Hart claims that 70% of doctorate holders do not have a parent with a doctorate. The test writers want you to believe that more likely is related to the 70% but in fact those two are not related numbers. Once you understand that the issue is with the percents then it is time to eliminate wrong answers. dhruvd wrote: 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.Because the 70% and the most likely are not directly related this cannot be true (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate.This is wrong because if only 100 parents have doctorate degrees then only 100 children are more likely to get them and if 1000 people get doctorate degrees then both claims are true. (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim.This is the best answer because there are numbers for which both statements are true, thus the claim is consistent (see answer B for numbers) (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim.Hart's argument attempts to discredit Choi, therefore it does not provide additional information to accept the claim (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.Choi does not mention what is necessary to get a degree, or what is sufficient to get a degreeonly what makes a degree more likely, therefore this statement is not true
_________________
Special offer! Save $250 on GMAT Ultimate Classroom, GMAT Small Group Instruction, or GMAT Liveonline when you use the promo code GCVERBAL250. Or, save $150 on GMAT SelfPrep when you use the code GCVERBAL150. Enroll at www.princetonreview.com



Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 75
Location: United States

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Oct 2013, 13:55
2
This post received KUDOS
Choi : childrens with doctoral parents more likely to become doctors than childrens with non doctoral parentsLets say there are  10 doctoral parents (50% likely that their children will be doctors) out of which 5 children doctors. 1000 non doctoral parents  10% likely  100 children doctor total doctoral children = 105 Doctoral children with doctor parents = 5 Doctoral children with non doctor parents = 100Hart: over 70% doctoral children have parents with no doctoral .considering above highlighted data  100/105 is the ratio/percentage of doctoral children with nondoctoral parent ( which is consistent with Hart  ratio is way over 70%).This is more like a weighted average problem in quant. Hence Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's . Jyothi
_________________
Jyothi hosamani



Senior Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 256
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.44

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Oct 2013, 02:34
1
This post received KUDOS
gmacforjyoab wrote: Choi : childrens with doctoral parents more likely to become doctors than childrens with non doctoral parents
Lets say there are  10 doctoral parents (50% likely that their children will be doctors) out of which 5 children doctors. 1000 non doctoral parents  10% likely  100 children doctor
total doctoral children = 105 Doctoral children with doctor parents = 5 Doctoral children with non doctor parents = 100
Hart: over 70% doctoral children have parents with no doctoral .
considering above highlighted data  100/105 is the ratio/percentage of doctoral children with nondoctoral parent ( which is consistent with Hart  ratio is way over 70%).
This is more like a weighted average problem in quant.
Hence Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's . Jyothi I think your demonstration is really good. The is a main difference between the first claim : "more likely than" and the second claim "the overall percentage or in other terms the number of people"! Answer C!
_________________
Think outside the box



Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 19
Schools: HBS '18, Stanford '18, Wharton '18, Kellogg PT '19, Stern '18, Yale '18, Mendoza '18, Simon '18, Zicklin'18, UFlorida '18, Jenkins FT'18, CBS, Isenberg FT '16

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Oct 2014, 08:17
Let's assume: 100 doctorate holders ( 30 with PhDs dads, 70 with nonPhDs dads) All PhDs dad's available = 10 000. ( for the sake of example) Non PhDs dads = all dads  PhDs dads = Millions Hence, if u compare probability of 30/10 000 with 70/ millions , then u see PhDs dads have more probability according to Harts's numbers. Now let's look at answers (A) It establishes that Choi's claim is an exaggeration. No quite opposite, providing supportive numbers unintentionally (B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. No Quite opposite , (C) It is consistent with Choi's claim. CORRECT ! His numbers are indeed CONSISTENT with Choi's CLAIM (D) It provides alternative reasons for accepting Choi's claim. If this is alternative reason, where is original reason?? We don't have enough reason to accept Choi's claim yet (E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur. No, Hurt just misinterpreted his numbers to evaluate Choi's claim So C is the answer
_________________
“It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”  Albert Einstein "Kirib chiqma, bilib chiq." "Век живи́  век учи́сь."



GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10155

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Dec 2015, 03:55
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up  doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.




Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents
[#permalink]
21 Dec 2015, 03:55







Moderators:
msk0657, mikemcgarry, Abhishek009, GMATNinjaTwo, Gnpth, Nevernevergiveup, sallysea, GMATNinja, carcass, hazelnut, souvik101990, yezz, nguyendinhtuong, chetan2u, Narenn
