BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Another advanced question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:37 pm

Another advanced question

by Justin So » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:04 pm
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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
Thanked: 175 times
Followed by:68 members
GMAT Score:750

reasoning

by Bryant@VeritasPrep » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:21 pm
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?
Top
User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
Thanked: 175 times
Followed by:68 members
GMAT Score:750

reasoning

by Bryant@VeritasPrep » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:22 pm
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?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:40 am
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Another advanced question

by Vemuri » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:35 pm
wow...I was thinking B was the closest answer. How are we to assume that Hart's comments were consistent with Choi's claim?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:37 pm

by Justin So » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:40 pm
Thank you for your kind explanation. Your explanation makes sense and I understand what you mean.
However, can we still say "Hart's reply is consistent with Choi's claim"? Hart does not say the same thing as Choi's.
Top
User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 4:06 am
Thanked: 175 times
Followed by:68 members
GMAT Score:750

process of elimination

by Bryant@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:27 pm
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
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 10:01 pm

by gmatstar » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:49 am
Hi All, This is still not clear to me :-(
Could anyone give an explanation to this.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
Thanked: 15 times

by life is a test » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:47 pm
gmatstar wrote:Hi All, This is still not clear to me :-(
Could anyone give an explanation to this.
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.

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!!
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:09 pm

by Wajiha » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:26 am
I still dont get it ...it is still opposite of the first statement so how can it be consistent? :cry:
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:36 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Another advanced question

by GMAT Verbal Coach » Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:15 am
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.
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.

"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]
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:33 am
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.
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
Top
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:36 am
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...
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:26 am
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 ?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:40 am

by kate.loo » Mon May 16, 2016 12:35 am
I am pretty sure that the right Answer is C
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1