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.
--------------------------
Explanation in Kaplan Advanced says Hart's consideration doesn't contradict Choi's claim in any way, and we can therefore say that Hart's statement is consistent with it. (C) is the answer.
However, can we just say it is consistent with the other because it doesn't contratict in any way? Please help me understand why (C) is the right answer.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Another advanced question
This topic has expert replies
-
Bryant@VeritasPrep
- MBA Admissions Consultant
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
- Thanked: 175 times
- Followed by:68 members
- GMAT Score:750
This is not a cursory question indeed. My guess is that it has to do with the number of people with PhDs and children. If, for example only 1% of people with children have PhDs, then 99% of people with children do not have PhDs. Then consider that a full 30% of people earning PhDs came from that 1% populous (their parents had the degree before them). So even though 70% of PhD earners did not have parents who had the degree, this has nothing to do with the liklihood that so many PhD earning children will have come from parents with PhDs. Make sense? Looking at it another way, pretend you have 100 famlies as a sample and one family in that hundred has parents with a PhD. The other 99 have parents without the degree. Out of every ten children, you are only going to get one PhD candidate. If you had to bet which households would produce more PhDs, would you bet on the one in a hundred that you know would have a 30% chance of producing a PhD kid (households with PhD parents), or have to guess at which of the other 99 out of a hundred were going to have a 70% chance?
-
Bryant@VeritasPrep
- MBA Admissions Consultant
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
- Thanked: 175 times
- Followed by:68 members
- GMAT Score:750
This is not a cursory question indeed. My guess is that it has to do with the number of people with PhDs and children. If, for example only 1% of people with children have PhDs, then 99% of people with children do not have PhDs. Then consider that a full 30% of people earning PhDs came from that 1% populous (their parents had the degree before them). So even though 70% of PhD earners did not have parents who had the degree, this has nothing to do with the liklihood that so many PhD earning children will have come from parents with PhDs. Make sense? Looking at it another way, pretend you have 100 famlies as a sample and one family in that hundred has parents with a PhD. The other 99 have parents without the degree. Out of every ten children, you are only going to get one PhD candidate. If you had to bet which households would produce more PhDs, would you bet on the one in a hundred that you know would have a 30% chance of producing a PhD kid (households with PhD parents), or have to guess at which of the other 99 out of a hundred were going to have a 70% chance?
-
Bryant@VeritasPrep
- MBA Admissions Consultant
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
- Thanked: 175 times
- Followed by:68 members
- GMAT Score:750
it's more of a lesser of five evils....if you read over the other answers, none are accurate, leaving c as the only alternative....because the statement is not inconsistent with his claim, it is therefore consistent with it.
Bryant Michaels
MBA Admissions Consultant
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options
MBA Admissions Consultant
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options
-
life is a test
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
To be honest not so clear to me either but an explanation that I founded on the net which seemed most reasonable is that the two statements are independant of each other.gmatstar wrote:Hi All, This is still not clear to me
Could anyone give an explanation to this.
parents with doctorate implies child is likely to also earn doctorate - you can't assume the converse of this relationship i.e. we dn't know what the likelihood is if a parent doesn't hold a doctorate which is the second statement...since we cannot refute it, all the other options are eliminated and we are left with C....
I find these questions annoying because you can see the logic when you have seen an explanation but I doubt very much that I would have got this right in the exam and in less than 2 mins!!
-
GMAT Verbal Coach
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
C is the right answer because you have to use terms as they are intended to be used and understood in the world of the GMAT, and not as they are in the real world, where we define terms more broadly.Justin So 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.
--------------------------
Explanation in Kaplan Advanced says Hart's consideration doesn't contradict Choi's claim in any way, and we can therefore say that Hart's statement is consistent with it. (C) is the answer.
However, can we just say it is consistent with the other because it doesn't contratict in any way? Please help me understand why (C) is the right answer.
"Consistent" in the more limited, precise GMAT sense of the word simply means that there is no contradictory relationship between the two statements. The first statement is about one group/set indicating likelihood, while the second statement is a fact that involves another, but related group/set.
Of course, there is an important qualification that must be noted here. The two phrases are still referencing the same topic (those that earn doctorates), which creates a link between the two phrases. In other words, had the second statement been about a topic completely off the wall, and unrelated, C would not have been the credited answer.
GMAT Verbal Coach
[email protected]
[email protected]
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Ian Stewart
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2621
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
- Location: Montreal
- Thanked: 1090 times
- Followed by:355 members
- GMAT Score:780
In logic, when we say two statements are 'consistent', we mean that the two statements 'could both be true'. That is, we mean that they don't contradict each other. So, for example, the following two statements are logically consistent:
* Everyone who plays golf also plays another sport
* No one who plays golf also plays tennis
These statements aren't contradictory; golf players might all play baseball, for example.
On the other hand, these statements are not consistent:
* Everyone who plays golf also plays tennis
* No one who plays golf also plays another sport
Since tennis is a sport, these statements could not possibly both be true.
Note that we don't actually care if the statements are true when deciding if they are consistent - we only care if it's theoretically possible for both to be true. Of course, clearly none of the statements above is true, but that doesn't prevent the first two from being consistent. And that's why the answer to the question in the original post is C; the two statements do not contradict each other, so they are consistent.
All of that said, I've never seen a real GMAT question that requires you to know the definition of 'consistent' in logic - this seems more like LSAT territory to me.
* Everyone who plays golf also plays another sport
* No one who plays golf also plays tennis
These statements aren't contradictory; golf players might all play baseball, for example.
On the other hand, these statements are not consistent:
* Everyone who plays golf also plays tennis
* No one who plays golf also plays another sport
Since tennis is a sport, these statements could not possibly both be true.
Note that we don't actually care if the statements are true when deciding if they are consistent - we only care if it's theoretically possible for both to be true. Of course, clearly none of the statements above is true, but that doesn't prevent the first two from being consistent. And that's why the answer to the question in the original post is C; the two statements do not contradict each other, so they are consistent.
All of that said, I've never seen a real GMAT question that requires you to know the definition of 'consistent' in logic - this seems more like LSAT territory to me.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com
ianstewartgmat.com
ianstewartgmat.com
-
DanaJ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
- Thanked: 712 times
- Followed by:550 members
- GMAT Score:770
I've seen a couple of other questions "shaped" like this one in Kaplan material (their CATs, to be more precise) and found all of them rather... meh... This is why I personally don't think Kaplan CR is GMAT-styled. I did like their SC tips though...
-
goelmohit2002
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1799
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:2 members
I guess if C would have been "It may be consistent with Choi's claim."....
then it would have been perfectly accetable without any contention...
What do u guys say ?
then it would have been perfectly accetable without any contention...
What do u guys say ?
