Kaplan-problem

[paes]

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 would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?

(A) Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
(B) Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
(C) Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
(D) One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
(E) Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.

OA later

[puneetdua]

IMO E -

please post the OA - its a bit differnt type of question for me...

[diebeatsthegmat]

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 would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?

(A) Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
(B) Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
(C) Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
(D) One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
(E) Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.

OA later

this question is a bit confusing..
i am confusing between A and E but i think i will choose E for the answer
what is the answer?

[paes]

nobody has given the right answer till now.

Try guys.

[nehaberi86]

Answer could be A as it provides us a with reason to connect the two statements.
In option E, even though Hart only provides additional evidence, the evidence could result in the first statement falling apart as the 70% mentioned is a considerable percentage (irrespective of the actual number being large or not).

[ankurmit]

I am confused between D and E

Finally i will go with D

[paes]

OA is B.

Can some Kaplan expert explain how the OA is B ?

[deepaks04]

Let me try to explain it.

First I chose E, but realised it is wrong because Hart is not supporting Choi statement.

Look at statement

Choi statements says the candidates earning PHD are those whose parents also have PHD's

Hart says most doctorates are those whose parents are not doctors

if we combine the both statements it shows person do earn their PHD's irrespective of their parents degree. so B is correct answer


-Deepak

(Pardon my english as I still on my sentence correction )

[KapTeacherEli]

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 would explain how both Hart and Choi could be correct in their assertions?

(A) Most doctorates who don't have a parent that also holds a doctorate have an aunt or uncle that holds a doctorate.
(B) Parental education is rarely the overriding factor in determining whether a person earns a doctorate or not.
(C) Both Hart and Choi fail to produce sufficient evidence to prove their cases.
(D) One man uses raw numbers while the other uses percents.
(E) Hart does not dispute Choi, but rather attempts to support his argument with additional evidence.

OA later

Step 1 of the Kaplan Method for Critical Reasoning: Identify the Question Type
The first thing we need to do is figure out what is going on with the question, and the word 'explain' in the the stem gives it away: this is an explain question. As soon as we see this, we know we will be looking to explain a seeming contradiction between two facts.

Step 2:Untangle the stimulus
We know what to look for in the question type: a paradox. So our task is to identify the contradiction! Here, Choi states that all else being equal, PHD children get more PHDs themselves. Hart, however, states that the majority of PhD students get PhDs with no doctorates in their families. So the paradox is:

"Having parents with PhDs is a factor in getting a PhD oneself, yet most PhDs do not have doctor parents."

Step 3: Predict the Answer
We need to resolve the paradox. Fortunately, we have a great starting point in Choi's first line: "All other factors being equal." Aha! Choi is talking about theory; Hart, however, is talking about real numbers, where all other factors aren't equal! So, we can predict an answer that explains both Hart and Choi's position:

"There are factors that have a larger impact on who gets a doctorate than having parents with a doctorate"

If this is true, then Choi is right because all else being equal, parent will be a factor, but Hart is right because things like money, education, and career path have a much larger impact, explaining his 70/30 number.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

Choice (B) matches our prediction, and is the correct answer.

[paes]

Thanks Eli,

You are trying to map 'rarely' with "all other factors being equal"