It is currently 23 Feb 2018, 23:51

### 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

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 952
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, 04:07
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: 333
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, 08:18
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: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 3
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 03:52
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, 08:46
1
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 non-PhD 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 step-by-step expert video tutorials (launching Monday, 7/29/13!)

Last edited by AlbertCA on 30 Jul 2013, 09:48, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 63
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
GRE 1: 326 Q161 V165
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2013, 19:03
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 previous-generation 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 population--i.e. compare apples-to-apples, 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 witch-craft with sample selection. Poor Hart doesn't stand a chance in this discussion.
_________________

former HBS (M), building a new way to evaluate & hire MBA admissions consultants @ https://www.admitbrain.com/

Princeton Review Representative
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 162
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2013, 05:11
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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 Self-Prep when you use the code GCVERBAL150. Enroll at www.princetonreview.com

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, 22:27
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, 04:26
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
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 12:57
vaibhavsharma wrote:
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
Hi vaibhavsharma,

As we discussed earlier, there is a different key phrase that you're missing--"likely to be" isn't really the central phrase.

The most important part of the prompt is the phrase "all else being equal." As soon as we see that, we know that one speaker is discussion hypothetical situations, and the other is discussing (unequal) reality. The two discussions are completely orthogonal to one another, and are therefore consistent (meaning not that they say the same thing, but rather, that they could both be correct at the same time)

Hope this helps!
_________________

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

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

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 73
Location: United States
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2013, 12:55
2
KUDOS
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 non-doctoral 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: 250
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2013, 01:34
1
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 non-doctoral 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"!

_________________

Think outside the box

Intern
Joined: 18 Feb 2014
Posts: 31
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2014, 09:30
Why C.
It is against , not consistent. I am still not sure after reading the explanations. Not convinced. I chose E
" But consider this:" clearly shows that she is going to contradict.

pls guide
Current Student
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Posts: 8
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: MBS '17 (M)
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2014, 00:29
A really confusing question

I will go with option C

Explanation:-
The tricky part of this question is in the beginning i.e. "All other factors being equal"

Choi is speculating that if all other facts are equal then children having parents with doctorate are more likely to earn a doctorate. Hart is providing a stat that 70% doctorates don't have a doctorate parent i.e. 30% doctorate have parents with doctorate. If all other factors are equal then this figure may increase and hence Choi's speculation can be true.

Thus argument of both are inline. Choi's argument is a speculation in a fair condition and Hart's argument is a statistical info supporting Choi's argument excluding the " Factors being equal"
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 14
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2014, 09:27
hapless12 wrote:
Why C.
It is against , not consistent. I am still not sure after reading the explanations. Not convinced. I chose E
" But consider this:" clearly shows that she is going to contradict.

pls guide

Hi hapless12,

GMAT questions (and LSAT style questions like this) are always structured to have a twist to them. The twist here is that set of contrast words you mentioned. The contrast words don't matter though because is what Hart says actually inconsistent with what Choi says? No.

What both Choi and Hart say could coexist, therefore we know for a fact that those two statements are consistent.

Its also important to note here that consistency doesn't mean supportive. It just means that the two statements can both be true, or in other words, that they don't disprove each other.

Much more to the bigger picture though, this is an LSAT style question by the way. Of all of the publicly released GMAC material, not a singe question has is remotely similar to this type. Questions like this do occur on the LSAT, however. That's why although certain LSAT questions can be helpful for the GMAT, many would be irrelevant for the GMAT. Its important to use caution when using LSAT or GRE practice questions to prepare for the GMAT. Each test has its own flavor.
_________________

Allen T.
http://www.empowergmat.com

EMPOWERgmat GMAT Club Page, Study Plans, & Discounts

Intern
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 10
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2014, 08:49
Wanted to know the difficulty level of these "Que of the day" questions?
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 19
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Oct 2014, 07:17
Let's assume:
100 doctorate holders ( 30 with PhDs dads, 70 with non-PhDs dads)
All PhDs dad's available = 10 000. ( for the sake of example)

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

_________________

“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."

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Aug 2011
Posts: 296
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GMAT 2: 700 Q42 V44
GMAT 3: 680 Q44 V39
GMAT 4: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.7
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2014, 05:24
That's why I AGAIN and AGAIN repeat - work with official OG problem. I think even doing one and the same problem over and over again is better than practicing with this kind of questions which, in the end, give you nothing. They are worded in a very awkward way and I have never seen any question like this in my 2 GMAT attempts and my OG practice. Sorry.
_________________

Thank you very much for reading this post till the end! Kudos?

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10332
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2015, 02:55
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.
Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 601
Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2016, 02:22
2X2 table explains

-----------------------------Parents Doc.--------Parents Not doc.------Total

Children Doc.---------------15------------------------15-------------------30

Children Not doc-----------5-------------------------65-------------------70

Total------------------------20------------------------80------------------100

C
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 642
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2016, 00:01
A very cheap algebra data sufficinecy word problem, disguised as critical thinking problem.
Answer should not take more than a minute to reveal itself:- BY THE WAY THE CORRECT ANSWER IS C

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW BEFORE SOLVING THIS QUESTION:-
LESS LIKELY MEANS PROBABILITY IS 49% OR LESS THAN 49%
EQUALLY LIKELY MEANS PROBABILITY IS 50%-50%
MORE LIKELY MEANS PROBABILITY IS 51% OR MORE THAN 51 %

To start in a fair an unbiased manner :-
Assume there are 1000 parents.
500 parents have Phd. 500 DO NOT have PhD (Do not skew this ratio. Even though any ratio would give you the correct answer, you must solve these kind of question by assuming both sides are equal A=B and then you will not have to test other two cases A<B or A>B. After seeing the solution , try to solve this problem with any ratio you want and you will still get the right answer)

NOW STARTS THE REAL QUESTION (ALGEBRA + PROBABILITY)
WE WILL SOLVE ALGEBRA FIRST AND THEN MOVE TO PROBABILITY.

A) 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.
Parents with PHD = 500
More likely = 51 %
Children having PHD = 51 % of 500 = 255 PHD

B) Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
Keep the term all doctorate in mind .
ALL doctorate means = (all kids= all whose parents have phd = 255)AND(kids whose parents have no phd=x)
The percentage of kids whose parents don't have phd is not given to us in the question stem. but we can easily find it
The percentage of phd kids whose parents don't have phd is x % of 500 (remember 500 parents don't have phd)= x% of 500 = (x/100)of 500 = 5x

now you know
Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
70 % (255 +5x)=do not have parent that also holds a doctorate.
or
70 % (255 +5x)=non phd parent (how many non phd parents are there = 500 non phd parents)
70 % (255 +5x)=500
70/100 (255 +5x)=500
7/10 (255 +5x)=500
7 (255 +5x)=500*10 (we took 10 to the right)
7(255 +5x)=5000
1785+35x=5000
35x=5000-1785
35x=3215
x=3215/35
x=92
There are 92 kids who have phd but whose parents don't have phd.

NOW COMES THE PROBABILITY PART :-

92 KIDS HAVE PHD BUT THIER 500 PARENTS HAVE NO PHD
PROBABILITY OF KID HAVING PHD BUT PARENTS HAVING NO PHD = 92/500 = 18.4 %

255 KIDS HAVE PHD AND THIER 500 PARENTS HAVE PHD (We derived this as the very beginning of the question. remember the more likely to have phd clause.)
PROBABILITY OF KID HAVING PHD AND PARENTS HAVING PHD = 255/500 = 51%

This is what Hart said in her argument but in a different way.

Which of the following is the most accurate evaluation of Hart's reply?
(C) It is consistent with Choi's claim.

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.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents   [#permalink] 14 Jun 2016, 00:01

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by