It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 01:55

### 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

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 473 [6], given: 29

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

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 07:53
6
KUDOS
27
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

28% (01:28) correct 72% (01:40) wrong based on 1364 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.

Could you explain in a detailed way please?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Kudos [?]: 473 [6], given: 29

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [20], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 15:39
20
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
perfectstranger wrote:
2. 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?

Ahh, now I can see why option C is the answer.

Since Choi said "more likely", it means that he is open to the suggestion that his claim may not happen. So when Hart is saying that Choi's claim didn't happen, well it is still aligned to Choi's claim because Choi never claimed that his expectation WILL happen or 100% certain. Choi is aware that he could be wrong as well. Maybe that's what it is. The more extreme is Choi's argument, the easier you can argue that Choi is wrong if your claim is true. However, the more mild is Choi's argument, the more difficulty you will face in saying that Choi was wrong. Because when the argument or conclusion is mild, you're including the other possibilities for your conclusion not to be true in a more subtle way. so when Hart told Choi that he was wrong, well Choi did include that possibility by giving a mild conclusion.

Even If I say that I have a 99% chance that I will pass an exam, even if I fail, my claim is still consistent because I left 1% possibility that I could fail and that's what happened. Had I said that I am 100% sure that I will pass, but then I failed, THEN my claim would be inconsistent or wrong!

Option E's logic is reversed from what really happened. Option E says that Hart understood Choi's claim to be a possibility rather than certainty, something that is completely opposite because Hart actually thought that Choi was certain about Choi's claim.

Last edited by tarek99 on 20 Jul 2008, 03:43, edited 17 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 1008 [20], given: 1

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127

Kudos [?]: 3480 [10], given: 123

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

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2013, 02:18
10
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.

Kudos [?]: 3480 [10], given: 123

Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 30 [6], given: 23

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, 04:48
6
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, 04:51, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question, renamed the topic.

Kudos [?]: 30 [6], given: 23

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1954 [5], given: 6

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 23:28
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I only agree with mbawaters above.

The key to the problem is not that Choi and Hart are talking about different groups of people. Choi is also talking about people who earn doctorates; when he says 'are more likely to earn doctorates', this does not refer to an event in the future.

Hart also does not confuse necessary and sufficient conditions in his response. What Hart says is neither necessary nor sufficient to refute Choi. E is not correct.

The point is that Hart's argument does not contradict Choi's statement. If only a small number of parents hold doctorates, both Choi and Hart could be entirely correct. That is, their statements are perfectly consistent, in the intended sense of being 'logically consistent': they can both be true. C.

"2. 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."
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 1954 [5], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [5], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2010, 16:31
5
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

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.

Last edited by ashah20 on 28 Aug 2010, 13:27, edited 4 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 6 [5], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 473 [2], given: 29

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 09:15
2
KUDOS
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Kudos [?]: 473 [2], given: 29

Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 215

Kudos [?]: 39 [2], given: 3

Location: Pune

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 09:57
2
KUDOS
As i have mentioned in the earlie post that the key lies to realise that CHOI is talking about the people who are going to earn doctrate but at presen they are not and as we might see that choi is talking about the entire group of people ie entire population.
if after this we look at the answer choices we may find hat C is the best option
By A She is not establishing the argumet to be exagerate
By B she is not proving the argument to be wrong as she is not targeting it
By D She is not even providing an alternative explaination Choi's claim
E whatever

while hart is talkin about the people who are already doctrate so it doesnt essentially means that she is disagreeing.
perfectstranger wrote:
OA answer is C , however I did understand nothing.

_________________

Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working
AB

Kudos [?]: 39 [2], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 170 [2], given: 27

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

### Show Tags

16 Oct 2013, 13:55
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

Kudos [?]: 170 [2], given: 27

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [1], given: 1

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 08:18
1
KUDOS
I say that the answer is E.

Because Choi said that children whose parents earned doctorates are MORE LIKELY to earn a doctorate. Choi never said that this will SURELY happen. By saying "more likely", Choi gave room for the possibility that his speculation may not always be true or may not always happen. In option E:

E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to
determine that the event will occur.

Hart misunderstood Choi's argument to mean that Choi's speculation will ALWAYS HAPPEN. That's what option E says. Another point that I would like to add is that Choi is trying to make a speculation about a possible outcome in the future. Hart is talking about the results right now.

What's the OA?

Kudos [?]: 1008 [1], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 48 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2008, 22:32
1
KUDOS
perfectstranger wrote:
2. 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.No, it does not negate Choi's claims in anyway
B If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate.
C It is consistent with Choi's claim.Is it not inconsistent 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?

Only C stands for me. Besides this can NOT be GMAT argument. I dont blieve GMAT arguments work like this.

Kudos [?]: 48 [1], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1008 [1], given: 1

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2008, 03:35
1
KUDOS
Read my 4th or 5th post behind. I've just edited it and highlighted it bold. I think that's what makes option C correct.

Kudos [?]: 1008 [1], given: 1

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 956

Kudos [?]: 903 [1], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2010, 22:48
1
KUDOS
Both the speakers are talking about two different groups.

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. >>> lets say Choi talks about 30% of the people which Hart ignores.

Hart: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate. >>> Hart talks about those 70% of people which Choi ignores.

Both speakers may be correct.

rohinipathi wrote:
I think it is B
Because, if the statement is true, it makes choi's statement fault.

How is the statement consistent with Choi's Claim?
It is "more likelly" v/s stats against "more likely" - Does anybody see consistency here??
Pls, somebody explain..

Kudos [?]: 903 [1], given: 36

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 252

Kudos [?]: 90 [1], given: 27

Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2011, 08:35
1
KUDOS
I'd say it's a 600-level question, reason being, there isn't much that you would analyze here. Choi claim says are likely whereas Hart's claim is reassuring. So I firstly think the answer itself is a bit vague.

If Hart is stating that 70% of the children who go on earn doctorates did not have parents who are doctorate holders, and Choi is stating that most children who have parents who are doctorate holders, how can it be consistent?

70% is a large percentage. It's more than half the demographic in consideration. Is 30% enough to attribute likelihood? I tend to differ.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Kudos [?]: 90 [1], given: 27

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 252

Kudos [?]: 90 [1], given: 27

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

Kudos [?]: 90 [1], given: 27

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644

Kudos [?]: 301 [1], given: 2

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.

Kudos [?]: 301 [1], given: 2

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 334

Kudos [?]: 421 [1], given: 4

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, 03:26
1
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

Kudos [?]: 421 [1], given: 4

Intern
Joined: 24 Jul 2013
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 09:46
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, 10:48, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 1

Princeton Review Representative
Joined: 17 Jun 2013
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 416 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2013, 06:11
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

Kudos [?]: 416 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 253

Kudos [?]: 68 [1], given: 401

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, 02:34
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

Kudos [?]: 68 [1], given: 401

Re: Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents   [#permalink] 30 Oct 2013, 02:34

Go to page    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 82 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by