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 percentage 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 proves alternate 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.
Good one
This topic has expert replies
- rockeyb
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:15 am
- Location: Nagpur , India
- Thanked: 41 times
- Followed by:1 members
I think the answer should be C .Shawshank 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 percentage 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 proves alternate 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.
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
[Its not necessary that they will earn doctorate but the chances are high.]
Hart: But consider this: over 70 percentage of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
[7 out of 10 doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate that means 3 out of 10 do . And that is what Choi is saying .People who have parents as doctors are likely to holds a doctorate.]
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
wonderful reply Pranab Bhai!!rockeyb wrote:I think the answer should be C .Shawshank 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 percentage 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 proves alternate 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.
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
[Its not necessary that they will earn doctorate but the chances are high.]
Hart: But consider this: over 70 percentage of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
[7 out of 10 doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate that means 3 out of 10 do . And that is what Choi is saying .People who have parents as doctors are likely to holds a doctorate.]
Cheers..where is my quant material???
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:20 am
- Thanked: 2 times
hei , guys didn,t get this one how can it be consistent with chois claim. can u throw some light
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
- Thanked: 47 times
- Followed by:2 members
IMO E.
E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
It is not necessary that Doctorates will have Phd parentage but - All other things being equal , there is a likelyhood.
Hart statement starts with a ''But'' as he feels 70% is a very high % not consistent with a 'more likely'scenario. He ignores Choi's initial assumptiom.
Feels like I am flowing against the tide of opinions. Hope to be corrected.
E) It mistakes what is necessary for an event with what is sufficient to determine that the event will occur.
It is not necessary that Doctorates will have Phd parentage but - All other things being equal , there is a likelyhood.
Hart statement starts with a ''But'' as he feels 70% is a very high % not consistent with a 'more likely'scenario. He ignores Choi's initial assumptiom.
Feels like I am flowing against the tide of opinions. Hope to be corrected.
Last edited by kstv on Sat May 08, 2010 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:57 pm
- Location: US
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:640
Hmm, I don't see it at all. Choi is not saying that people who have parents as doctors are likely to hold a doctorate, she is saying that they are MORE LIKELY to hold a doctorate than the others. This means that any given person with a doctorate is MORE LIKELY to have a parent who is also a doctor than not.rockeyb wrote:I think the answer should be C .Shawshank 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 percentage 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 proves alternate 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.
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
[Its not necessary that they will earn doctorate but the chances are high.]
Hart: But consider this: over 70 percentage of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
[7 out of 10 doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate that means 3 out of 10 do . And that is what Choi is saying .People who have parents as doctors are likely to holds a doctorate.]
Hart replies that 7 out of 10 people do not have parents with a doctorate, compared to 3 who do, which is quite the opposite. How in the world is that consistent with Choi's claim?
- Jen@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 12:40 pm
- Location: New York City
- Thanked: 40 times
- Followed by:30 members
This is a tricky one! Choi is talking about the likelihood of an INDIVIDUAL to do something, while Hart is talking about the statistics of a certain POPULATION. Think about this example:
All other things being equal, if I go to college in Boston, I am more likely to live in Boston than is someone who does not go to college in Boston.
Even if the total population of Boston is only 30% college students, the above statement could still be true.
Since the statements do not contradict each other, they are logically consistent. The wording in answer choice C is somewhat confusing, but statements do not have to make the SAME argument in order to be consistent; they merely have to coexist logically (that is, they cannot contradict each other).
Hope that helps!
All other things being equal, if I go to college in Boston, I am more likely to live in Boston than is someone who does not go to college in Boston.
Even if the total population of Boston is only 30% college students, the above statement could still be true.
Since the statements do not contradict each other, they are logically consistent. The wording in answer choice C is somewhat confusing, but statements do not have to make the SAME argument in order to be consistent; they merely have to coexist logically (that is, they cannot contradict each other).
Hope that helps!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
The Bolded portion is where you are committing a mistake . They are more likely and not Only Loikelyrockeyb wrote:I think the answer should be C .Shawshank 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 percentage 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 proves alternate 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.
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
[Its not necessary that they will earn doctorate but the chances are high.]
Hart: But consider this: over 70 percentage of all doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate.
[7 out of 10 doctorate holders do not have a parent that also holds a doctorate that means 3 out of 10 do . And that is what Choi is saying ..]People who have parents as doctors are likely to holds a doctorate
I Seek Explanations Not Answers