It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 16:02

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
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 229

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

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

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 03:48
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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% 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.

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

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 801

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 03:53
this must be an LSAT question.

I think the answer is E, mistaken reversal

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 229

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

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 03:57
this one's from the kaplan 800 book.

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

Intern
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 2

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

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 05:41
IMO E

Because the first person tries to explain the children of the PHD holders tendencies to get this degree...... not the ordinary people.....

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

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 635

Kudos [?]: 636 [0], given: 6

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 06:51
IMO D.

If 70% cases is true for all those doctorate who don't have any doctorate parents, rest 30% follows the rule that is stated by choi. So provides alternate support to choi's claim.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 636 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 0

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 11:09
1
KUDOS
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Kudos [?]: 113 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 548

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 11:22
grumpyoldman wrote:
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.

Great Explanation. Kudos +1

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 2

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1402

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 11:27
grumpyoldman wrote:
This one does smell somewhat LSAT-like, but the percent-of-an-unknown-base aspect is a typical GMAT technique.

The answer is C. Because we know nothing about how many parents have and do not have doctorates, we cannot conclude anything about what proportion of students with doctorates have either type of parent. Suppose that 10% of students whose parents do NOT have doctorates earn doctorates, while 20% of students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is consistent with Choi's claim. Now suppose that there are 710 parents who do NOT have doctorates, and 150 parents who do have doctorates. This also is consistent with Choi's claim, because he/she says nothing about how many there are in each group.

In this situation, 71 students whose parents don't have doctorates earn doctorates, and 30 students whose parents do have doctorates earn doctorates. This is what Hart is saying. Thus, Hart's statement is consistent with Choi's claim.

It is critical to realize that "consistent with" means "does not contradict". It does NOT mean "proves" or "is proven by". "Consistent with" means that a statement CAN be true at the same time as the other statement, but does not HAVE to be. You are definitely more likely to see "consistent with" on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

The other answer choices: E is incorrect because neither person says that anything is a necessary condition. Choi certainly doesn't say that you MUST have a parent with a doctorate in order to get one. D is incorrect because the only possible reason for accepting Choi's claim would be information that tells us the two ratios: the percent of children of PhDs who get PhDs, and the percent of children of nonPhDs who get PhDs. D does not tell us this. In fact, because "over 70%" can mean "100%", it allows the possibility of Choi's claim being false.

This one was definitely beyond my imagination. I still did not understand the explanation. what confused me more was the total number of students came to 101 as opposed to 100 when we deal with percentages. Any different explanation?

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1535

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 12:06
Excellent explanation by grumpy. I chose C, but, by the time, I read E, I forgot C and zeroed down on E. However, this explanation has helped understand the context of "necessary/sufficient".

Kudos [?]: 279 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 19:39
Sorry about the numbers in my explanation; I should have made them add to 100. Use 710 parents without PhDs, and 145 parents with PhDs. This results in 71 children of non-PhD parents earning doctorates, and 29 children of PhD parents. The reasoning and the selected answer remain the same.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: New jersey

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 20:02
I chose B "B) If true, it effectively demonstrates that Choi's Claim cannot be accurate." .

Because that's what Hart is trying to convey with the additional fact
_________________

Target +700
Life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you gonna get..

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 229

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

Show Tags

09 Nov 2008, 20:48
OA is C

and i dont need to post the OE...grumpy's explanation is better than even in the book...

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

Re: CR- really good   [#permalink] 09 Nov 2008, 20:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Choi : all other factors being equal, children whose parents

 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®.