|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]
 17 Dec 2005, 11:34
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
_________________
hey ya......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 1068
Location: CA
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
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. ==> Strengthen the argument
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. ==> Correct. Hotels built before 1930s were smaller thus carpenters are able to pay attention to the details
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. ==> If materials were no different, it must be the quality of the workers that differentiated the quality. Strenghten the argument
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 ==> Strengthen the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 400
Location: Chicago, IL
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 17
|
Agreed with TeHCM.
_________________
Hard work is the main determinant of success
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: CA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
D it is.
_________________
Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
Originally I chose A, but after reread the passage I think D it is.
Last edited by automan on 18 Dec 2005, 15:00, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 233
Location: Germany
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Very difficult.
I choose B here, although the passage does not give any trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 588
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
I go with A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Dhaka
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
very good job TechM.
OA is B. Hotels built before 1930s were smaller thus carpenters are able to pay attention to the details .
_________________
hey ya......
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: CA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
nakib77 wrote: very good job TechM.
OA is B. Hotels built before 1930s were smaller thus carpenters are able to pay attention to the details .
nabik77, are you sure about OA?
I still think D is correct in this case.
conclusion:
carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
B. the size of the hotel does not have any direct relationship with the quality of workmanship, IMO
D.
The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
it indicates that only "good quality" hotels build before 1930 are left as poor quality buildings might have been fell into disuse. Thus, indicating that carpenters workmanship might not have been better for buildings prior to 1930.
please provide OE if you have.
_________________
Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: CA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I found this discussion on same CR:
http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=15053
_________________
Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I would still go with D. It is not the skill but the proper mainataince that makes the pre 1930's look better in quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 506
Location: Europe
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
nakib77 wrote: very good job TechM.
OA is B. Hotels built before 1930s were smaller thus carpenters are able to pay attention to the details .
Sorry nakib77 but u're wrong. OA is D!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 91
Location: Minneapolis
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
duttsit wrote:
After going thru this thread, I understood the question as below -
Assume 3 out of 10 hotels built before 1930 have superior carpentry and hence only 3 survived. The writer can only go to these 3 hotels and hence his claim is limited to a sample or a subset.
What if 6 out of 10 hotels built after 1930 have superior carpentry. Just because the 4 inferior hotels built after 1930 are compared to 3 survived superior hotels, the conclusion is not generic and hence weakened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1913
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 0
|
Bhai wrote: I would still go with D. It is not the skill but the proper mainataince that makes the pre 1930's look better in quality.
IMO, both B and D are not strong enough.
We can be tempting to choose B as we think that the more guests coming in the hotels, the more frequently the carpentry is touched ( thus, easier to be spoiled) ---> here, we're trapped coz how many guests a hotel can accomodate doesn't necessarily mean that the hotel has that many guests ---> B is not strong enough.
D only confirms that those hotels built before 1930 have better carpentry than that of hotels built after 1930 ---> but it doesn't mean anything about the maintenance. One may think that the longetivity of hotels is contributed to the originally high-qualitied carpentry, but the reversed can't be confirmed.
Anyway, this CR is really controversial!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A – Out of scope.
B – Alternative explanation to why the quality of the post-1930 ones is lower, rather than simply being a decrease in carpentry skills. Weakens the writer's argument.
C – If anything, this strengthens the writer’s argument.
D – Out of scope.
E – Strengthens the writer’s argument.
Answer, B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is B....if the hotel can accomodate more guests, that means that there will be more people to spoil the carpentry as compared to the hotel that has less guests.... thus the deteoriation of carpentry is not due to lousy carpentry but due to human intervention....
What is OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
87
[0], given: 0
|
Premise:
1) Carpentry work before 1930 more superior than capentry work after 1930
Conclusion
2) Carpenters work with more skill/care/effort before 1930 than carpenters do after 1930
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?
A. Irrelevant
B. Irrelevant
C. Strenthens teh claim
D. Irrelevant
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Best option seems to be E. If length of apprenticeship has declined, then it means new carpenters spend less time with their mentors. So they may work with the same amount of care/effort but they are just not as skilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
what is OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 216
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
I too do not agree with B.
Reason: The hotels before and after would have been of the same size... but, if the rooms in 1930 hotels are bigger than the rooms in after 1930 hotels, this option does not stand.
D - D makes sense.
E - I initially picked E. But, I now understand that we need to assume a lot to arrive at E.
OA please....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
E is not weaking the argument. It is supporting that the skill level of the carpenters is declined after 1930. I will go with D. B leaves too much to be assumed. OA please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
