Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 26 May 2016, 12:48
GMAT Club Tests

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 312
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 219 [4] , given: 1

GMAT ToolKit User
Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2009, 23:58
4
This post received
KUDOS
24
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:12) correct 45% (01:26) wrong based on 1438 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Guidebook Writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.


I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
20 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 144 [20] , given: 5

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2010, 06:59
20
This post received
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vaivish1723 wrote:
I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

We want to weaken the argument that carpenters before 1930 were better than carpenters after 1930.

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores. The writer isn't comparing hotels to other buildings - irrelevant.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. Irrelevant

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. STRENGTHENS the argument - if both sets of carpenters have the same quality tools, then the pre-1930's carpenters were probably doing better work with those tools

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. Makes sense - it's not that every single hotel built before 1930 was better than the ones built after, but instead that the VERY BEST hotels are still around, while the lesser ones have long since been demolished. The proportion of badly built hotels before 1930 could have been much higher than it is now, but all of the bad ones have been demolished and replaced with modern buildings, so the writer is only seeing the best of the best that were built.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. Would strengthen the argument - carpenters train less now than they used to.


I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer
4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 159
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [4] , given: 11

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2009, 02:17
4
This post received
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
- Irrelevant

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
- Possible. Diffentiate between the 2 structures but no direct relationship with the caprpentary until we argue that carpentry was damanged by accomodatine more guests blah. Disregard

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
- Doesnt weaken infact strengthen.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
-This gives us the idea that the old buildings have good carpentry since all other similarly aged buildings would have fall into misuse and demolished due to bad carpentry. Since the comparison is not fair in nature, it weakens the author's original argument.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
- Doesnt weaken infact strengthen.
2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: -25 [2] , given: 1

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2013, 05:32
2
This post received
KUDOS
vaivish1723 wrote:
Guidebook Writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.


I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer



A - comparison is not between hotels and houses
B- we are not talking about guests
C- irrelevant
D- correct
E- in a way strenthens the argument
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 239
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [1] , given: 17

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2010, 08:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
vaivish1723 wrote:
I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Conclusion :Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.



Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.Irreverent as the author compares just hotels
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. We do not care about accommodation but about skill
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.Irrelevant- How can materials have anything to do. If at all it supports the authors conclusion that even though the same tools were used older buildings were better made
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. The very reason that the author could visit these hotels is because the quality of carpentry was good and it withstood the test of time
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.Irrelevant


I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 377
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 138 [1] , given: 9

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2016, 00:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Guidebook Writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

So, Quality of furniture in hotels built before 1930 > Quality of furniture in hotels built after1930
Hence -> Quality of skill, care and effort is better for carpenters before 1930 > Quality of skill, care and effort is better for carpenters after1930

We need to weaken it. If we see it is A -> B -> so this is an causal argument
Some of the strategies we can use:
1) The data is biased.
2) B -> A
3) There is some other reason C, such that C -> B and A is just present there.

Lets check the options now:


A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
As soon as you see "Other", most probably, it is out of scope as we are comparing furniture in hotel built before 1930 and furniture in hotel built after 1930 -> hence Wrong

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
Guests don't have an impact on the furniture. Out of scope.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
So, the materials are of equal quality, so this option should support the conclusion instead of weaken the argument -> Hence wrong

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Now, this option talks that data provided is distorted.

For example: lets say out of 100 hotel built before 1930, 10% of the hotel have good furniture
so 10 hotels with a good quality.
Now, out of 100, 50 hotels are demolished, so if we observe the quality now, we can see 10/50 = 20% so we have a false impression that we have there are more hotels with good furniture.

lets hotel built after 1930, 15% of the hotels have good furniture. Even though 15% > 10% but as hotels were demolished, we have a wrong set to compare.
Hence the data provided is wrong or biased -> Hence the option weakens the argument.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Average length of apprenticeship doesn't indicate the quality of furniture produced is low as we need to make another assumption that length of apprenticeship is directly proportional to quality of furniture manufactured -> Can be next best answer. -> but we have D) better answer

Let us know if you have any other queries.
_________________

Reach out to us at bondwithus@gmatify.com

Image

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 850
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 257 [0], given: 106

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2009, 07:01
OA is D as I remember. D seems appropriate too.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 799
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Followers: 78

Kudos [?]: 624 [0], given: 56

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2009, 08:24
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 44
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 8

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2010, 07:36
i am still unable to understand how the answer is D....

Please explain in a little detail...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 239
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 17

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2010, 08:12
cr-set-23-q2-53053.html

Another thread
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 239
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 17

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2010, 08:13
Here is another link.. donot find it too helpful but can explain some answer choices
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2010, 06:21
Please explain bit confused
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2010, 07:25
vaivish, malik, nishant - try using POE and you will narrow down to 1~2 choices.

Irrelevant A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.

Irrelevant. Some ppl might try to relate it - more guests - > more damage. If less damage means better work /quality (but this is stretching it too far in GMAT) B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

Strengthens coz is material is same, then workmanship has to be better. C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

Irrelevant E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

Now go back to D. Building still there - > original carpentry is good quality - > it is not the workmanship, but the quality of material. Hence, weakens the claim of high quality of workmanship by the author.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 141
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 29

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2010, 08:16
adishail wrote:

Now go back to D. Building still there - > original carpentry is good quality - > it is not the workmanship, but the quality of material. Hence, weakens the claim of high quality of workmanship by the author.



Where does it specify about quality of material? It just says that building is still there because of good work done by workers.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: ==GMAT Ninja==
Joined: 08 Jan 2011
Posts: 247
Schools: ISB, IIMA ,SP Jain , XLRI
WE 1: Aditya Birla Group (sales)
WE 2: Saint Gobain Group (sales)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 46

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2011, 03:41
vaivish1723 wrote:
I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.


I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer


I got it wrong
i was confused by E
however now i have to take it as D after reading the explanation :? :?
_________________

WarLocK
_____________________________________________________________________________
The War is oNNNNNNNNNNNNN for 720+
see my Test exp here http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-test-experience-111610.html
do not hesitate me giving kudos if you like my post. :)

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 707
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 37

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2011, 04:05
D it is.

D tells us Writer visited only those before-1930-hotels that had better quality of carpentary. Otherwise those hotels would have not in use as hotels at all. Hence it weakens writer's claim
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: ==GMAT Ninja==
Joined: 08 Jan 2011
Posts: 247
Schools: ISB, IIMA ,SP Jain , XLRI
WE 1: Aditya Birla Group (sales)
WE 2: Saint Gobain Group (sales)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 46

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2011, 04:09
crick20002002 wrote:
D it is.

D tells us Writer visited only those before-1930-hotels that had better quality of carpentary. Otherwise those hotels would have not in use as hotels at all. Hence it weakens writer's claim


Excellent man
nice and different explanation
kudos to you :) :)
_________________

WarLocK
_____________________________________________________________________________
The War is oNNNNNNNNNNNNN for 720+
see my Test exp here http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-test-experience-111610.html
do not hesitate me giving kudos if you like my post. :)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 21
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2011, 20:21
The essence of the argument is that better quality hotels is a result of working with more skill, care, and effort prior to 1930. So we need to find a case that refutes this claim. Look for the option disproving that all buildings in this era were of good quality.

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

If this is true, then we can't say that all hotels were quality hotels prior to 1930 because there could be thousands built at this time that were of poor qualilty which fell into disuse and were demolished. So it correctly weakens the argument.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 311
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 56

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2011, 12:52
I picked D...this is representativeness problem....only the best hotels built before 1930 are still functioning, the rest were demolished. The writer is comparing all contemporary hotels to the best of the 1930's. Not a fare comparison and does not reflect the change in workmanship of carpenters.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Posts: 148
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 2

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2011, 21:26
+1 for D
Re: I have visited hotels throughout   [#permalink] 25 Oct 2011, 21:26

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the marcodonzelli 6 19 Jan 2008, 08:17
5 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the JCLEONES 4 08 Jan 2008, 08:37
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the s_positive 8 20 Oct 2007, 10:15
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the circkit 9 27 Jun 2007, 06:13
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the uvs_mba 6 08 Nov 2006, 01:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.