It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 15:53

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:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1659
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs

Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 22:06
+1 C
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 261
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3

Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 00:23
1
KUDOS
KapTeacherEli wrote:
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!

I saw this in another post of the same question. I think this settles the dispute.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 239
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.38
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)

Show Tags

17 Apr 2012, 16:49
ashah20 wrote:

Assume that of a population of 100 parents, 10% have children with PhDs. So there are 10 PhDs. (10% is reasonable because the number of PhD in a population is low, probably around 2%)

Hart's statement tells us that 3 of the 10 have parents who hold Phds and the other 7 do not.

Thus Hart's statement proves Choi's statement (that PhDs are more likely to have children that have PhDs)

The chance that a person without a PhD has a child with a PhD is 7/90

The chance that a person with a PhD has a child with a PhD is 3/10

* by the way, when one say something is more likely, it means that past data has shown that this claim to be true. i.e if I said, it is more likely that hurricanes follow a period of hot weather, it means that hurricanes have occurred more often after a period of hot weather than after a period of normal weather.

i have this picture according to what was stated.

---------------------------------------------100 parents--------------------------------------
--------------parents with PHD children------------------------parents with children w/out PHDs
----parents with PHDs ----Parents without -------------------------------------90---------------
-----------3 --------------------7--------------------------------------------------------------

first you have to assume that the 90 parents on the right ALL don't have PHDs. The 90 specifies parents WITH KIDS that don't have PHDs, but says nothing about the parents themselves.

But assuming that, I thought it would be 7/97, not 7/90 for a parent without a PHD having a kid with a PHD. Anyway, the point is still proven.

but you can also assume that for the right 90 parents, all those parents have PHDs, but none of their kids have PHDs. Then you get

chances of a parent with a PHD having a kid with a PHD 3/93
chances of a parent with a PHD not having a kid with a PHD 90/93

so answer choice B is pretty strong if two interpretations are possible. especially considering that those interpretations have heavy assumptions.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 430
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 05:55
To my view none of the options is appropriate. Here Choi is saying event X (doctorate parents in this case) is likely to cause event Y (doctorate children in this case). Hart is implying that event Y is fully correlated to event X.

As per Choi, event X can be a subset of event Y. But, Hart is assuming that event Y is subset of or equivalent to event X. Hart is not agreeing with Choi and she is trying to argue with reverse analogy.

Option C does not make much sense though it is best out of all the options given.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 06:39
Actually, Choice C is not reasonably waterproof.

Here's why:
We know that over 70% of PhD holders were not sired by PhD holders. This percentage/proportion could range from more than 70% up to 100%. Testing the extreme values of this range, we see that the percentage of PhD holders whose parents were PhD holders themselves can range from less than 30% to even 0%.

Applying these figures (which we deduced from Hart's statement) to the claim made by Choi, we can say that if 30% of PhD holders were born to parents who are PhD holders themselves, then we can reasonably say that, assuming the parents who are PhD holders are less than 30% of the population, then their kids are definitely more likely to hold a PhD.
This interpretation IS consistent with Hart's claim.

Conversely, if 100% of PhD holders were born to parents who are not PhD holders themselves (or 0% of PhD holders were born to parents who are PhD holders), then we can reasonably say that, assuming the parents who are PhD holders are ANY percent of the PhD holders of their "generation", then their kids are NOT any more likely to hold a PhD--in fact they will be less likely to have a PhD.
This interpretation IS NOT consistent with Hart's claim.

This makes C a rather unconvincing answer.

Kaplan could have given a "better" or stronger answer (statement from Hart) that would have been consistent with Choi's claim if they had written that, say, "More than 5% of PhD holders were born to PhD holding parents". Even so, such a response would require us to assume the proportion of PhD holders of the "parental generation" etc.

Point is, if the given percentages are not well-tested by the test makers, it can open a can of worms brimming with a myriad, slimy test cases of proportions and percentages that can unintentionally lead to contradictory cases.

Cheers,
Der Alte Fritz.
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1381
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 07:26
KapTeacherEli wrote:
perfectstranger 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.
(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.
HI Perfectstranger,

The bolded part is the key. Choi is making a hypothetical statement--if all else is equal, then having parents is an advantage. Hart is making an empirical statement: he is discussing reality, in which all else isn't equal, and so his final results differ. This is entirely consistent with Choi's claim, since Hart is shifting the scope of the discussion from the theoretical to the practical.

Note that, in addition to the scope shift, a number/percent error may be present in Hart's claim. Take a look at ashah20's post for a great explanation. As is often the case on the GMAT, there are multiple ways to get to the correct solution!

I am still unable to get how Kaplan can proclaim all other factors are not equal. How can anyone assume that in reality all factors can't be equal. Need guidance from experts.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 36
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.78
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 13:08
perfectstranger 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.
(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.

Could you explain in a detailed way please?

Ok folks, I understand why option C is correct. I was struggling between C & E.

I had picked E, but when I tried to understand why it was wrong...I had no idea. Here's why: I have no idea what option E is saying! The whole necessary/sufficient thing is really making my head buzz. It seems like LSAT terminology, because I haven't really come across any questions with that sort of terminology in OG12 or VOG2.

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 14:04
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
dpvtank wrote:

Ok folks, I understand why option C is correct. I was struggling between C & E.

I had picked E, but when I tried to understand why it was wrong...I had no idea. Here's why: I have no idea what option E is saying! The whole necessary/sufficient thing is really making my head buzz. It seems like LSAT terminology, because I haven't really come across any questions with that sort of terminology in OG12 or VOG2.

Which of the following sentence makes more sense:

Joey does not have nails or a hammer, so Joey cannot build a house.
Joey has nails and a hammer, so Joey can build a house.

The first one is solid but the second one seem iffy, right? Well, that's what E is saying. To build a house, you must have a hammer and nails; they are necessary tools to complete the process. But in addition to hammer and nails, you need lumber, paint, ladders, screws, electrical wiring, pipes, and siding. A hammer and nail are not sufficient to build a house, not by a long shot! And the second statement above mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient one, so it is flawed.

However, as discussed above, neither Hart nor Choi make such a flawed premise; in fact, both of their statements are logically consistent. So choice (E), which describes a common reasoning flaw not present in this prompt, is wrong.
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Last edited by KapTeacherEli on 31 Aug 2013, 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 14:07
OldFritz wrote:
Actually, Choice C is not reasonably waterproof.

Here's why:
We know that over 70% of PhD holders were not sired by PhD holders. This percentage/proportion could range from more than 70% up to 100%. Testing the extreme values of this range, we see that the percentage of PhD holders whose parents were PhD holders themselves can range from less than 30% to even 0%.

Applying these figures (which we deduced from Hart's statement) to the claim made by Choi, we can say that if 30% of PhD holders were born to parents who are PhD holders themselves, then we can reasonably say that, assuming the parents who are PhD holders are less than 30% of the population, then their kids are definitely more likely to hold a PhD.
This interpretation IS consistent with Hart's claim.

Conversely, if 100% of PhD holders were born to parents who are not PhD holders themselves (or 0% of PhD holders were born to parents who are PhD holders), then we can reasonably say that, assuming the parents who are PhD holders are ANY percent of the PhD holders of their "generation", then their kids are NOT any more likely to hold a PhD--in fact they will be less likely to have a PhD.
This interpretation IS NOT consistent with Hart's claim.

This makes C a rather unconvincing answer.

Kaplan could have given a "better" or stronger answer (statement from Hart) that would have been consistent with Choi's claim if they had written that, say, "More than 5% of PhD holders were born to PhD holding parents". Even so, such a response would require us to assume the proportion of PhD holders of the "parental generation" etc.

Point is, if the given percentages are not well-tested by the test makers, it can open a can of worms brimming with a myriad, slimy test cases of proportions and percentages that can unintentionally lead to contradictory cases.

Cheers,
Der Alte Fritz.
Hi Fritz,

"Consistent" does not mean "means the same thing as." It just means "does not contradict." And as you've pointed out in your reasoning, it is entirely possible (though by no means guaranteed) that Hart and Choi are both completely right! Their statements are consistent.

Regards,
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 15:39
Dear Eli,

From which part of what I wrote are you deducing that I am interpreting "consistency" as "the same thing as"? My point is, and remains, simple. Though option C might pass muster (perhaps barely so), it is exposed to interpretations (diligently explained in my previous post) that can make Hart's statistics consistent (not the "same thing as", mind you) with Choi's position in some cases and inconsistent in others.

Maybe you should consider taking time to read what I wrote if you care to respond, sir, instead of using turning to the good old "Strawman."

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Intern
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 36
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.78
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 18:09
KapTeacherEli wrote:
dpvtank wrote:

Ok folks, I understand why option C is correct. I was struggling between C & E.

I had picked E, but when I tried to understand why it was wrong...I had no idea. Here's why: I have no idea what option E is saying! The whole necessary/sufficient thing is really making my head buzz. It seems like LSAT terminology, because I haven't really come across any questions with that sort of terminology in OG12 or VOG2.

Which of the following sentence makes more sense:

Joey does not have nails or a hammer, so Joey cannot build a house.
Joey has nails and a hammer, so Joey can build a house.

The first one is solid but the second one seem iffy, right? Well, that's what E is saying. To build a house, you must have a hammer and nails; they are necessary tools to complete the process. But in addition to hammer and nails, you need lumber, paint, ladders, screws, electrical wiring, pipes, and siding. A hammer and nail are not sufficient to build a house, not by a long shot! And the second statement above mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient one, so it is flawed.

However, as discusses above, neither Hart nor Choi make such a flawed premise; in fact, both of their statements are logically consistent. So choice (E), which describes a common reasoning flaw not present in this prompt, is wrong.

That clears it up perfectly! Thank you. +1 to you.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 21:40
OldFritz wrote:
Dear Eli,

From which part of what I wrote are you deducing that I am interpreting "consistency" as "the same thing as"? My point is, and remains, simple. Though option C might pass muster (perhaps barely so), it is exposed to interpretations (diligently explained in my previous post) that can make Hart's statistics consistent (not the "same thing as", mind you) with Choi's position in some cases and inconsistent in others.

Maybe you should consider taking time to read what I wrote if you care to respond, sir, instead of using turning to the good old "Strawman."

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

Posted from my mobile device
Hi Fritz,

Sorry if I'm not understanding what you are saying. But if Choi's position is "in some cases" inconsistent with Hart's, then the two statements are certainly "consistent." When discussing logical arguments, "consistent" means simply "could both be true," and "inconsistent" means "cannot both be true." Since there are circumstances in which Hart and Choi's statements could both be true (even if in many--or most!--cases, they are not both true), the statements are consistent and (C) is correct. I hope this explains what I meant!

Regards,
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Sep 2012, 04:31
Point noted, Eli.

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 392
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Sep 2012, 22:14
I agree with most replies here. This question is definitely not "GMAT" like. The concepts of sufficiency and necessity are not explained anywhere in Official Guides.
There is no way a test taker is going to be aware of this just by reading the official guide or the concepts mentioned in it.

Off the top of my head, I have no idea what defines a condition for necessity and what is a condition for sufficiency?

It is unfair to test folks on these concepts without prior knowledge. I believe Kaplan assumes people have this prior knowledge.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2012, 14:17
mourinhogmat1 wrote:
I agree with most replies here. This question is definitely not "GMAT" like. The concepts of sufficiency and necessity are not explained anywhere in Official Guides.
There is no way a test taker is going to be aware of this just by reading the official guide or the concepts mentioned in it.

Off the top of my head, I have no idea what defines a condition for necessity and what is a condition for sufficiency?

It is unfair to test folks on these concepts without prior knowledge. I believe Kaplan assumes people have this prior knowledge.
Hi mourinhogmat,

"Necessity versus Sufficency" is tested far more often by the LSAT than on the GMAT. However, it is not something analogous to, say, sines and cosines on the Quant section (which will never be tested because they can't be solved intuitively or with "common knowledge.) It is a common logical flaw in life, along with "proportion vs. number" and "causation vs. correlation," and so it's fair game for the GMAT to test!
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save \$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 194
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2012, 22:33
I have approached this question by the process of elimination and was stuck with C and E
E states the opposite of what is given in the argument.

Thank you everyone for indepth explanation.
Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 961
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jul 2013, 05:07
Its clearly against Choi, as stated in Choi's argument that keeping all condition same Parent with Doct is proportional to Child with Doct.

This Pd=k Cd
where k condition constant, reverse is also valid bcz of this constant.

Where Harts says that 70% of Cd do not have Pd.

thus Pnd = 70/100 of Cd (one to one map child to parent)

means more number of doctorate's parents are not non doctorate.

Pnd ---> maximum Cd.

which is exactly not in proportion to Choi's law.

Pd >> Cd
Pnd >> Cd (70% chance of occurrence higher than 30%--30% mapping of Choi's prediction)

Chois formula is applicable to only 30% parent and children who fall exactly under scope of that proportionality.
But universally considering Harts data this formula is not applicable to overall population, further many other factors are missing to concrete choi's formula. thus i think answer should be B.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 335
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jul 2013, 09:18
Piyush,

You've gone way too complicated here!

B is basically saying the 2 sentences are mutually exclusive. I.e. they both can't be true.

But as tonnes of people above have already pointed out, that's not the case.
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 4
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V41
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2013, 23:27
Hi ,

Here is my explanation of the correct answer choice C,

Choe's Argument's scope is : parents who have a doctorate and the probability or likelihood of their kids getting a doctorate.

Hart's Argument's scope is: People who already have a doctorate.

So first things first ... both the above scopes do not intersect , hence they are neither contradicting nor agreeing.
Hence eliminating A,B,D

Ok left with C, E.

If you look closely E too pertains to an event and it's cause and it's sufficiency. Hence it somehow tries to intersect the two arguments, hence not a good choice.

Coming to C, first thing , what is the exact meaning of consistent? Does it mean agree? NO.. It means two arguments can exist in parallel without agreeing or disagreeing..
Example:
Statement1: Most of the giant tortoises are found in the Indian Ocean.
statement2: No giant tortoises were found in New Zealand.

Both statements though unrelated are consistent.
Hence C
Intern
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 1

Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 05:26
Here the key word "likely to be " is playing the vital role in deciding option for answer . likely to be means that first person is always open to his argument whether it is right or wrong rather than claiming it and second person is putting data to open discussion in above argument so it becomes consistent with fist argument

Hence C ,however very patchy question but to be aware about the same pattern next time
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard)   [#permalink] 31 Aug 2013, 05:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 69 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
37 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 11 21 Dec 2015, 03:55
23 The law of demand states that, if all other factors remain 16 11 Mar 2017, 04:18
2 Parent P: Children will need computer skills to deal with 21 12 Jun 2016, 04:57
6 Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents 22 17 Jul 2016, 14:22
Parents of some of the children in a particular class have 8 07 Jul 2013, 00:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by