Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

Guidebook writer:

1) I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930, quality of original carpentry work is superior to that in hotels built afterword
2) Clearly, carpenters working on 1930 worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built later.


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.
- out of scope

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
- 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.
- in that case, it supports the conclusion

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

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
- Sounds like the best choice among the 5. If average lenght of apprenticeship declined significantly since 1930, then it might be a case of lower-skilled carpenters after 1930, which results in lower quality of work.

I'll take E.

any thing which comes close is D.

it gives a reason why the quality declined and has nothing to do with the skill.

Ah yes, D makes sense now. The hotels would probably need to be rebuilt after demolition so this generates business for the carpenters.

Choice E would need another assumption to make it work.

D it is.

Will probably have to wait a couple of days for more members to try out. But this is a good question. The answer choice touched on something really subtle.

D it is.

Author argues "skills of carpenters made the hotels superior",

but actually the "quality of orginal carpentry made the hotels superior".

so D

(E) is a trap i think.

Average training period decreased.
Assume average period before 1930 was 40 hours a week
Assume not the average is 30 hours a week.

Since it is average someone might be trainning for say 60 hours and few others might train for 20 hours a week.

If those who trained for 60 hours a week produced most of the furnitures then those furnitures will have superior quality.

Now to analyzing the argument

Premise
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.

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.

The inherent assumption here is that there is no difference between capenters before 1930 and those after 1930. If there is no difference in all aspects (working conditions, training, time spent, quality of good and tools etc) only then the conclusion is valid. To weaken this argument we have to show that there is some difference between these carpenters.

(D) brings in a motive that differentiates these two carpenters form each other.

E strengthens it rather than weakens it. D sounds best.

I've changed it to D earlier. OA ?