Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 18 Jan 2017, 00:40

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

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

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 363 [6] , given: 14

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 00:59
6
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (02:06) correct 45% (01:31) wrong based on 852 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 18
Schools: Kellogg, Ross, Darden, Kelley, UNC
Followers: 0

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

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 04:01
10
KUDOS
Nasty one, I would go with D. My reasoning follows:

gurpreet07 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. Doesn't get to the point, which is comparing the quality of the work done by carpenters in hotels before 1930 vs. the quality of the work done by the carpenters in hotels after 1930.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. This could imply that carpenters working after 1930 were forced to do more work in the same amount of time, thus worsening the quality, or that more carpentry needed to be done using the same resources. However, we don't have anything to compare the skills of workers before and after 1930. I'll discard it.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. This strengthens the conclusion rather than weakening it, because it states that using the same materials the carpenters working before 1930 were able to do a better job than those 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. I'LL GO WITH THIS ONE!! If this is true, it means that only the hotels built with the best carpentry are still up and operating; the hotels built with bad carperntry have been demolished, and thus the author hasn't had the opportunity to visit them and see the job made by less skilled carpenters working in hotels before 1930.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. This could imply that carpenters that began to work after 1930 had less time to learn how to get a good job done. However, I think that this one weakens the argument at a minor extent than D.

In this question, we have several possible answers that somewhat weaken the author's conclusion (B, D and E). But still we have to look for the one that weakens the most the conclusion and that provides evidence against it. That's why I chose D.

Really curious to see which one is the OA (and other gmatclubbers' answers as well).
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 191 [2] , given: 0

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 04:42
2
KUDOS
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. ~~~

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 08:36
What is the source of this question?
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 0

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 09:46
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.
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 648
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 506 [0], given: 6

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 10:12
This is a confusing question. Yeah D is the safe bet.

Author looked at hotel carpentry and commented on skills of all carpenter in general. What if author has considered only great carpentry and mistakenly categorized ALL carpenter as great worker?

If hotels with worst carpentry are demolished, buildings built before 1930 have great carpentry work anyhow because they still exist. - which is D
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 497
Schools: Kellogg, MIT, Michigan, Berkeley, Marshall, Mellon
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 13

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 12:08
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
http://gmatclub.com/forum/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
http://gmatclub.com/forum/630-q-47-v-28-engineer-non-native-speaker-my-experience-78215.html#p588275

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 14

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 19:49
Hi everybody....
thanks for the quick and timely responses

the OA is D........ i dont't know the source as of one my friend gave this question to me...........
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2009, 20:34
I didnt find any choice gud enough 2 weaken the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 431
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 4

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2009, 08:56
I think A also weakens the argument

If the carpentry in only the hotels is good then there is a possibility that only a few number of carpenters specialized in hotel carpentry were good(I'm assuming that majority of the carpenters, who were pathetic, in 1930s worked for houses, stores etc - makes sense because there must have been hardly a hand few hotels in that period)

So, the author's point of comparison is illogical - he cannot compare only a handful of carpenters of one era with the ones in some other era and make a conclusion about the carpenters as a whole

Cheers,
Unplugged
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 107 [12] , given: 0

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2009, 16:21
12
KUDOS
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

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 06:07
Great explanation as always. +1
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 14

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2009, 20:00
Awesome explanation Grumpy +1 from me too......
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 58
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2009, 12:21
my ans was E, but understood from others explanation what I missed out.
Intern
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2009, 21:43
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..
Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 2

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2009, 08:28
Good explanation. Thanks!

MBA2012 wrote:
Nasty one, I would go with D. My reasoning follows:

gurpreet07 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. Doesn't get to the point, which is comparing the quality of the work done by carpenters in hotels before 1930 vs. the quality of the work done by the carpenters in hotels after 1930.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. This could imply that carpenters working after 1930 were forced to do more work in the same amount of time, thus worsening the quality, or that more carpentry needed to be done using the same resources. However, we don't have anything to compare the skills of workers before and after 1930. I'll discard it.
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. This strengthens the conclusion rather than weakening it, because it states that using the same materials the carpenters working before 1930 were able to do a better job than those 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. I'LL GO WITH THIS ONE!! If this is true, it means that only the hotels built with the best carpentry are still up and operating; the hotels built with bad carperntry have been demolished, and thus the author hasn't had the opportunity to visit them and see the job made by less skilled carpenters working in hotels before 1930.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. This could imply that carpenters that began to work after 1930 had less time to learn how to get a good job done. However, I think that this one weakens the argument at a minor extent than D.

In this question, we have several possible answers that somewhat weaken the author's conclusion (B, D and E). But still we have to look for the one that weakens the most the conclusion and that provides evidence against it. That's why I chose D.

Really curious to see which one is the OA (and other gmatclubbers' answers as well).
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 175
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 3

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2009, 13:41
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

Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 146
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 1

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2010, 23:58
choose e but d is the best
Manager
Status: Planning to retake.
Affiliations: Alpha Psi Omega
Joined: 25 Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
GRE 1: 1310 Q630 V680
GPA: 3.16
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 14

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2010, 01:09
After going back and forth between D and E, I chose E after 1:44. Oops.
_________________

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

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 320
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 35

Re: Confusing CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2010, 06:15
Was not happy with the answer. I was btw B and D, choose D because of the word "quality"

Only thing I got to say, grumpyoldman, thank you for the amazing explanation. I understand indeed why it is D.
Re: Confusing CR   [#permalink] 03 Nov 2010, 06:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 39 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 5 08 Jan 2008, 07:37
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 13 29 Nov 2007, 03:45
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 8 20 Oct 2007, 09:15
9 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 16 29 Sep 2007, 10:13
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 10 27 Jun 2007, 05:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

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

 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®.