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
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s
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
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
Hunch is (D)
Buildings built after 1930 would've had the building's longetivity as a criteria and would hence require a better quality of workmanship. Here's why I don't think the other choices work:
A. Irrelevant as it doesn't compare pre-1930 and post-1930 carpentry
B. Hotel size is not indicative of the quality of craftsmanship
C. Emphasizes the argument, rather than weaken it
D. Correct for the reason stated above
E. Emphasizes the argument
My GMAT debrief