It is currently 25 Feb 2018, 05:58

### 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
Your Progress

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
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: 1621
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 21:06
+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: 251
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 23:23
1
This post received
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)
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2012, 15:49
ashah20 wrote:
Answer is C because:

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.

something seems strange about this. some assumptions seem to be made.

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: 419
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 04:55
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: 263
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 05:39
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: 1372
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: CR-Diologue (very hard) [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 06:26
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
Location: Canada
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, 12:08
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.

Can someone please explain?
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, 13:04
1
This post received
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.

Can someone please explain?
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, 12:53, 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, 13:07
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: 263
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2012, 14:39
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
Location: Canada
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, 17:09
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.

Can someone please explain?
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, 20:40
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: 263
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2012, 03:31
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: 385
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, 21:14
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, 13:17
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: 192
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2012, 21:33
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.
Leaves C as the answer.

Thank you everyone for indepth explanation.
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Yale '16, YLP '16 (M)
GPA: 3.4
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 03:48
6
This post received
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Last edited by Zarrolou on 13 Jun 2013, 03:51, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question, renamed the topic.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1124
Location: United States
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2013, 01:18
11
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, 00:57
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: 333
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2013, 02:26
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

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2013, 02:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 84 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.