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 19 Jan 2017, 03:29

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 40
Location: Leeds
Schools: SBS, JBS(ding w/o interview), HEC
WE 1: SCI-12 yrs
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 03:33
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (01:06) wrong based on 3 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: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1473
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 04:39
ajitsah 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.
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: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks

The argument is saying that carpenters before 1930 are more talented than carpenters after 1930 based on his visits to older hotels. However, in D, it is saying that hotels with bad quality carpentry typically get demolished. In other words, if there was a hotel with bad carpentry prior to 1930, the hotel is probably demolished. The argument is making a conclusion based on observation. The writer is only visiting hotels with good carpentry because the ones with bad carpentry have been demolished.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 76

Kudos [?]: 1270 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 05:25

cr-set-23-q2-53053.html
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 40
Location: Leeds
Schools: SBS, JBS(ding w/o interview), HEC
WE 1: SCI-12 yrs
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 06:04
lagomez wrote:
ajitsah 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.
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: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks

The argument is saying that carpenters before 1930 are more talented than carpenters after 1930 based on his visits to older hotels. However, in D, it is saying that hotels with bad quality carpentry typically get demolished. In other words, if there was a hotel with bad carpentry prior to 1930, the hotel is probably demolished. The argument is making a conclusion based on observation. The writer is only visiting hotels with good carpentry because the ones with bad carpentry have been demolished.

Thank you very much, this is better than any other explanation given elsewhere, better than even the ones posted in the above link. Great.
Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 19:07
D says "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished".

The same would be applicable to buildings after 1930.
Nowhere does he state that this applies only to building before 1930..

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1473
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 04:51
FedX wrote:
D says "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished".

The same would be applicable to buildings after 1930.
Nowhere does he state that this applies only to building before 1930..

This can be true, but the question asks for an answer that weakens and only D weakens from the choices available
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 188
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 04:38
i would like to exxplain in slightly diffrent manner
prior to 1930 the buildings included both good and bad carpentry, but the bad carpentry fell into disuse and demolished and good one remained there,
now in mordern days there are good and bad carpentry and the guidebook writer is comparing good and bad carpentry of mordern times to the good carpentry before 1930
hencethe this comparision is awkward hende D is the ans
Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 564
Location: United States (LA)
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GRE 1: 328 Q167 V161
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 222

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

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 08:17
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.
It is completely out of scope as we are not comparing with other structures.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
This option is also out of scope as accommodation of guests is irrelevant wrt topic in discussion.

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 option is actually a strengthener as it states that quality of materials has not deteriorated much

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
This is a weakener as it explains that if the quality of work was not good in 1930's,then the hotel would have been probably demolished.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it explains work done now by the carpenters is not as good as it was in 1930's

Re: Guidebook writer : I have visited hotels throughout the   [#permalink] 04 Jun 2016, 08:17
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
41 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 38 11 Feb 2009, 00:59
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