It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 22:57

### 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
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 844
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 01:15
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more llikely 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 clain 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
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 02:12
What a question! A and B effectively cancel each other out. C and D are illogical. E correctly notes the misunderstanding.

E.

Vithal, we would really appreciate if you could continue posting questions from this source!!!!!!!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix
Re: CR: Kap 800: Choi [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 05:08
I think none of the options accurately evaluate Hart's reply.

A is wrong because Choi's claim may or may not be an exaggeration.

B is wrong because even with > 70% ppl without parents being doctorates, Choi's claim cud be right if there're very few people who're already doctorates. Thus even tho their children are more likely to be doctorates, comparatively more children of non-doctorate people go in for doctorate.

C may be correct. Not necessarily. Besides Hart doesn't make it appear if he thinks Choi's statement is consistent.

D. is wront. "But" means Choi's claim was not accepted.

E is evasive. I can't think of two conditions presented here that provide "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. Hart's statement thinks having doctorate parents is a "necessary" condition for someone going in for a doctorate. However, the "sufficient" condition isn't properly mentioned in Choi's statement. (I feel that everything being equal people whose folks are doctorates wud go in for doctorate is NOT sufficiient because Choi's statement says "are more likely". It is not "sufficient" for going in for a doctorate).

E might be the best amongst the options - it however doesn't look correct to me still.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 05:23
If you read this problem very carefully, it becomes evident that a scope shift is in Hart`s response. His facts are consistent with Choi`s claim. I know I can`t do this on the real GMAT CAT, but I am going to change my answer to "C"
Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 853

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 05:59
I will go with B - since 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent who holds a doctorate shows Choi's claim is false
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 06:24
C)...

choi`s argument gives a condition that makes it more likely for an effect to happen. if children with parents with doctorate then it more likely that children earn a doctorate

hart doesnt question the chain of choi`s reasoning. he speaks of children with a parent that holds no doctorate and that their % is greater. that is consistent with choii, because it can still be more likely what choi says. there is no conflict between choi and hart.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1209
Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 06:33
GMATT73 wrote:
If you read this problem very carefully, it becomes evident that a scope shift is in Hart`s response. His facts are consistent with Choi`s claim. I know I can`t do this on the real GMAT CAT, but I am going to change my answer to "C"

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more llikely 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.

Hart's refution is invalid because he must prove children whose parents earned doctorates are no more llikely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.
Hart's argument seems to stress parents' degree is a sufficient condition which guarantees e their children's doctor degree. Choi just said 'more likely' which might be a necessary condistion.

choice C seems too strong and can be rejected because Hart said 'but', which implied he didn't agree with Choi's assertion.

go with E

VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1480
Location: Germany

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 06:47
chunjuwu wrote:
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more llikely 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.

Hart's refution is invalid because he must prove children whose parents earned doctorates are no more llikely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents did not earn doctorates.
Hart's argument seems to stress parents' degree is a sufficient condition which guarantees e their children's doctor degree. Choi just said 'more likely' which might be a necessary condistion.

choice C seems too strong and can be rejected because Hart said 'but', which implied he didn't agree with Choi's assertion.

go with E

choi`s argument is a prediction that makes an effect more likely, but it`s not a fact. the effect can happen but it must not happen.

hart`s argument is a fact. this fact is possible in the scenario that choi describes. so it is consistent.

hart
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1433

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 06:50
"C"....Hart's reply doesn't contradict Choi's, so it is consistent with what Choi said.
Director
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 844

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 21:24
Okay, this was a tough one (for me definitely!)

OA is C
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 367

### Show Tags

29 Apr 2005, 21:39
well ... shud hit myself...but indeed a good question.
29 Apr 2005, 21:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 16 07 Aug 2011, 03:11
3 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 9 07 Sep 2010, 01:16
1 Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 09 Nov 2008, 20:48
Parents of some of the children in a particular class have 5 04 May 2008, 14:19
Choi : All other factors being equal , children whose 5 05 Jul 2007, 00:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by