Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]
14 Jul 2010, 07:11
59% (02:11) correct
41% (01:45) wrong based on 54 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.
can someone pls explain y E is not correct... since avg apprenticeship decreases-> carpenter less skilled before becoming full fledged carpenter ->after 1930 carpenters less skillful
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]
06 Dec 2012, 20:52
Premise: Carpentry in hotels built before 1930 were of better quality than that in hotels build afterwards. Conclusion: Carpenters after 1930 worked with more Skill, Care and Efforts than those before.
To weaken the conclusion, you should be able to prove that carpentry before 1930 was good because of some different reasons than the factors of skill and care.
Option (E)tells that period of apprenticeship was longer before 1930. It means that carpentry was done with some more care and cautiousness. Still you cannot argue against the factors of skill, care, effort. Even if option (E) is correct, I can say that Workers after 1930 worked carelessly. Hence this option doesn't weaken the conclusion.
If you consider option (D), the whole reasoning turns to be baseless. If superior carpentry is vulnerable to disuse and demolition, then good carpentry is nowhere because it is being destroyed, Not because worker before 1930 were more careful.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
06 Dec 2012, 20:52