Considering it a math problem, you will suddenly find this question very easy.
Draw a 2X2 matrix
Y=1
| p01
| p11
| Y=0
| p00 | p10
| joint probability
| X=0
| X=1
|
X axis is for parents: X=0 means "parents without Doctoral degree" and X=1 means "parents with Doctoral degree" Y axis is for children: Y=0 means "children without Doctoral degree" and Y=1 means "children with Doctoral degree"
What is Choi talking about? "likelihood" - The odds ratio! If we translate Choi's statement into mathematical expression, it is simply "odds ratio > 1" odds ratio = (p00*p11)/(p01*p10) > 1 (Choi)
Again, let's translate Harts' statement into mathematical expression, it is simply p01/p11 > 7/3 (Harts)
From the above two mathematical expressions, we can clearly see that these two have nothing to do with each other. In other words, they could co-exist. Hence choice C is correct. (No mistakes, no inconsistencies, no weakening ....)
Choi: All other factors being equal, children whose parents earned doctorates are more likely to earn a doctorate than children whose parents who did not earn doctorates. Harts: But consider this: Over 70 percent of all doctorate holders do not have a parent who 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 effecively demonstrates that Choi's claim cannot be accurate. c. It is consisitent 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. -- by 会员 zl35 (2012/3/26 23:43:58)
|