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.

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.


My Explanation:
---------------
A.) Nothing has been mentioned about houses and stores. It's just a distraction.

B.) This can either go against or in favour of the carpenters working post 1930. We can say that they might compromised on quality of work and instead focused on creating more space. On the other hand, we can also say that they were better skilled.
To conclude, we don’t have sufficient info to reach any concrete conclusion, so discard it.

C.) This can only strengthen the conclusion.

D.) If we go by method of elimination, we’ll be left with this option as the correct one. Moreover, on the basis of this option, we can say that the hotels built before 1930, which were examined by the writer are definitely of good quality. This means that hotels of inferior quality that were built before 1930 have not been taken into consideration for reaching the conclusion. This option, therefore, weakens the writer’s argument.

E.) What it can only do is strengthen the argument.
---------------

So, I will also go for option D.

Hope that helps.
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

To me, it looks like option B for the reason that if the hotel can accommodate more guests, chances are that more guests usually got accommodated and resulted into more use of carpentry work and faster deterioration of quality.

Hi mates,

IMO D but because I elimiminated the others...

A out: other structures have nothing to do here, just hotels
B out: same with guests
C out: this answer strength the argument, because if the materials were the same after and before 1930 and the quality of those before 1930, neccesary carpenters prior 1930 must be better than those after 1930
E out: apprenticeship has nothing to do here

OA and Source?

Is this a GMAT question?

Cheers
_________________

mates, please visit my profile and leave comments
johnlewis1980-s-profile-feedback-is-more-than-welcome-80538.html

I'm not linked to GMAT questions anymore, so, if you need something, please PM me

I'm already focused on my application package

My experience in my second attempt
http://gmatclub.com/forum/p544312#p544312
My experience in my third attempt
630-q-47-v-28-engineer-non-native-speaker-my-experience-78215.html#p588275

I didnt find any choice gud enough 2 weaken the argument.

Definitely D. The wording of the question is misleading, as many of them are. It is not true that one of the answers weakens the argument more than another or some others; one of the answers DOES weaken the argument, and the others DON'T.

The conclusion claims that the "skill, care and effort" of carpenters who worked on hotels before 1930 exceeded that of carpenters who worked on hotels after 1930. This is an extremely specific conclusion, and it does not have any of the more common loopholes -- such as comparing carpenters who worked on hotels before 1930 to ALL carpenters afterwards. The evidence is also quite specific: The author has seen that the "quality of the original carpentry work" (which clearly excludes materials, artistry of design, etc.) is generally better in hotels that were built before 1930 than in hotels that were built afterwards.

I for one was not able to see a missing assumption in this argument; it looks quite solid. But it is a Weaken question, and that means that there must BE a missing assumption. One of the answers must undermine or contradict that assumption, because that is how an argument is weakened on the GMAT. So let's look at the answer choices, and see which one points at the assumption that escaped our notice.

(A) Irrelevant. The evidence compares carpentry work in two groups of hotels, and the author reaches a conclusion about carpentry work in those two groups of hotels. How well the older carpenters did their work OUTSIDE of hotels does not matter.

(B) Irrelevant. This might be seen as a reason why carpenters after 1930 were less careful, but that does not affect the argument. The argument STARTS from the observation that the quality of the work in the newer hotels is not as good as in the older hotels, and then reaches a conclusion about the carpenters' behaviour. In order to weaken the argument, we need to show that OBSERVING lower quality does not necessarily mean that the carpenters WERE less careful. Why they may have been less careful does not affect the linkage between the observation and the behavioural conclusion.

(C) Strengthens the conclusion. It eliminates the possibility that the quality in the newer hotels is worse because the materials were actually so bad that even with the same level of care on the carpenter's part, the result looks bad. (Notice, however, that we have identified at least one assumption here. The argument assumes that the materials after 1930 were not so bad that they affect the visible quality of the work. Unfortunately, the answer choice supports the assumption rather than contradicting it.)

(D) This one says that a building with lower quality carpentry is more likely to be destroyed. Obviously, hotels built before 1930 have had more time to be destroyed than hotels built afterwards. THIS weakens the argument; it says that the guidebook writer is much less likely to SEE the hotels which were built with bad carpentry before 1930, because those are most likely to have disappeared. Consequently, the hotels STILL STANDING which were built before 1930 may not be a representative sample of all hotels which were built back then. Now we can see the assumption, which is that the hotels seen by the writer are representative of both the pre-1930 and the post-1930 time periods. (D) undermines that assumption, and weakens the argument.

(E) This is somewhat like (B). It could explain why later carpenters did not HAVE as much skill as earlier carpenters. It is irrelevant to the argument, however, which starts from observational evidence and concludes that they either did not have as much skill or did not use as much skill/care. To weaken the argument, we have to attack the linkage between the observations and the conclusion, and only (D) does that.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Awesome explanation Grumpy +1 from me too......

IMO B

as this option only indicates in a way that the carpenters after 1930 are able to build better hotels than carpenters who built hotels before 1930..

Very Tricky question, what about hotels demolished after 1930 due to poor quality of carpentry? Do we assume that Buildings prior to 1930 are considered for demolition and others are not? I don't like this question
_________________

Rock On

After going back and forth between D and E, I chose E after 1:44. Oops.
_________________

Did I help you? Please give me kudos.

Each moment of time ought to be put to proper use, either in business, in improving the mind, in the innocent and necessary relaxations and entertainments of life, or in the care of the moral and religious part of our nature.

-William Andrus Alcott