Good one

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.

I think the answer should be C .

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.]

nice explanation Rockey,

I knew this problem beforehand and I see that your explanation goes very much inline with OA..

rockeyb wrote:

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.

I think the answer should be C .

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.]

wonderful reply Pranab Bhai!!

Cheers..where is my quant material???

hei , guys didn,t get this one how can it be consistent with chois claim. can u throw some light

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.

I agree with kstv and will go with E. Can we have an expert response to this one please?

rockeyb wrote:

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.

I think the answer should be C .

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.]

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.

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?

I will go with E as well.

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!

rockeyb wrote:

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.

I think the answer should be C .

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

.]

The Bolded portion is where you are committing a mistake . They are more likely and not Only Loikely