Critical Reasoning

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.

OA C

i know that C is the official answer but I disagree with this... there are contradicting statements here and the only answer that address this is B. why is C the correct answer?

C is good.

"likely" is the keyword here. Choi just states a likelihood or a possibility/chance. Hart's argument gives actual data on people who have already earned their doctorate. Choi makes no claim on people who have already earned their doctorate. both their claims are hold.

scoobydooby wrote:C is good.

"likely" is the keyword here. Choi just states a likelihood or a possibility/chance. Hart's argument gives actual data on people who have already earned their doctorate. Choi makes no claim on people who have already earned their doctorate. both their claims are hold.

likely is not the concern that we should account here; however,the main point of Choi should be of concern.

C is no way near to the answer.

IMO : B

A- It doesn't give any insight into whether or not Choi's claim is an exagerration. Without more details this answer choice is too strong/extreme to be correct.

B- This is wrong because they are playing off of percentages and common misconceptions. Lets say that 25% of all phds have parents that also have doctorates. This is outside knowledge, but a very high percentage of PHds do not have children, so it could be that all 25% of those PHds that have parents that also have their docterate's represents 75% plus of the children of PHds.

C- This is correct because it is the only answer that isn't blatantly false

D- It does no such thing. See explanation for B

E- There is no conditional reasoning present, so this is incorrect.

osirus0830 wrote:
B- This is wrong because they are playing off of percentages and common misconceptions. Lets say that 25% of all phds have parents that also have doctorates. This is outside knowledge, but a very high percentage of PHds do not have children, so it could be that all 25% of those PHds that have parents that also have their docterate's represents 75% plus of the children of PHds.

Thank you very much Osirus. U have made it easy for us all who think (B) is the correct answer.

I'm really sorry but I'm still not convinced with the explanation for C.

This is correct because it is the only answer that isn't blatantly false.

Though I now understand why B cannot be the correct answer :

https://noblognameleft.blocked/2006 ... er-is.html

But, I now believe that the answer choices are very, very poorly constructed. I believe that most of us would have eliminated C instantly because it is not consistent with Choi's argument. I agree that it does not harm or contradict it, but certainly doesn't help it either. How can it be consistent then?

Main Entry: con·sis·tent
Function: adjective
a : marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity
b : marked by agreement

Everyone who is able to give a justification for C, were you able to get this correct in the first shot? I doubt!

harshavardhanc wrote:I'm really sorry but I'm still not convinced with the explanation for C.

Everyone who is able to give a justification for C, were you able to get this correct in the first shot? I doubt!

I guess its time to post the Official Explanation. Source is kaplan 800.

Hart's 70 percent figure pretty much tells us that numbers and statistics is the name of the game here. We're asked to evaluate Hart's response to Choi, so let's see what Choi has in mind. Choi's statement is a comparison among individuals: If my parents have earned doctorates and yours didn't, then Choi says that the odds are better that I will earn a doctorate than you will. Choi's claim goes no further. He doesn't claim that children of doctors are guaranteed to earn doctorates, and he doesn't even claim that they are likely to earn doctorates. He merely claims that these children are more likely to earn doctorates than their counterparts who do not have a parent that earned a doctorate. So even if only 5 percent of doctors' children earn doctorates themselves, Choi's claim is still correct as long as fewer than 5 percent of children whose parents didn't earn a doctorate went on to earn a doctorate themselves.

Thus the irrelevancy of Hart's 70 percent figure, which gives us information on a different group-those who already earned their doctoral degree. Because she has shifted the scope, the data Hart presents can be true and still have no bearing on Choi's claim. An example: Suppose that there are 10 people in the world with doctorates. Choi merely claims that children of these people are more likely to get doctorates than children of other people. Hart comes along and says that of the 10 people, say, 8 of them (over 70%) come from doctorate-less parents. Does that alter Choi's claim in any way? No. All other factors being equal, the children of those doctors could still be more likely to earn doctorates, even if most doctorate holders don't have that particular heritage. Because of this, 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.

(A), (B), and (D) are all off the mark in that they require a connection between Hart and Choi that simply isn't there. Because the speakers' target groups are different, no positive or negative connection can be made between the two claims, and so we therefore cannot say that one shows the other to be exaggerated (A) or false (B), or that one helps the other (D).

(E) The concept of necessity versus sufficiency cannot be invoked against Hart because Hart's statement is merely the presentation of a statistic. As such, in this case there is no "event" to which this type of mistake could apply.

Komal, thank you for posting that explanation from Kaplan 800.

Option C should have been phrased as 'It could be consistent with Choi's claim.'