The brochure for Sailboat Sellers Inc. indicates that

@Aditya...B indeed is the official answer I was caught up between B and D only to realize that D actually strengthen the argument ...Thanks!! for your insight

How does C weaken the conclusion? If the .materials were the same, it supports the conclusion that they were more attentive.

I know that B is about the size, but since we dont have an obvious weaken answer choice, can we not consider it as a possible answer? ..more the no. Of people, more the wear and tear..

Posted from my mobile device

I think B should be the answer.

B tells us that Sailboats made after 1990 spend more time at sea and hence more wear and tear happens so these sailboats do not able to retain the original finish, polish, etc. And therefore attention of manufacturers does not matter. And, so, B weaken the argument.

Please advise whether I am right?

Yes ..IMO any option that provides an alternate reason other than " sailboat manufacturers were more attentive to producing higher-quality, durable sailboats before 1990 than was the case subsequently" for increased likeliness of boats manufactured before 1990 to retain its original paint and finish should weaken the conclusion...B rightly does that

@kapsycumm.. No C doesn't weaken the conclusion or else it would have been a contender for the right answer (Its a weaken the argument question)...it in fact strengthens the conclusion by dismissing an alternate cause that might have caused the difference in quality

Well it seems that someone stay s on the front line to highlight a wrong (maybe) response such as a international complotto or conspiracy . It's a simple question on which we can agree or disagree, though, maintaining an attitude composed.

Secondly, a boat could be large and accomodate even if it doesn't have the best quality materials; in the conclusion we are talking of a superior quality of producing a sailboat



maybe or not. you can infer this but you do not know exactly if a boat is produced in its entirely in a factory without high skill workers.

it is some time that I have stopped to do mgmat question and I dedicated myself only to official materials.

Sorry, I meant to say "strenghten"..but, you get the point

Carcass..I apologize if my post was too strong. I was replying from my phone.

The brochure for “Sailboat Sellers Inc.” indicates that sailboats manufactured before 1990 are more likely to have retained their original finish, polish, and detailing than those manufactured in 1990 or later. Therefore, sailboat manufacturers were more attentive to producing higher-quality, durable sailboats before 1990 than was the case subsequently. [CONCLUSION]

Which of the following, if true, would serve to cast doubt on this conclusion?


A) The level of resources dedicated to the manufacturing process of sailboats is generally much higher than that for most other manufactured goods.
ofs.

B) Sailboats built after 1990 are generally larger, spend more time at sea, and accommodate more people per use than those built before 1990.
Not because of quality difference (as stated in the conclusion) but may be because of usage pattern (more time at sea, more people per use) , sailboat may not retain the original finish..etc..
C) The materials used by sailboat manufacturers before 1990 were not significantly different from those used after 1990.
NOTE: The word "significantly" . This means May be sailboat manufacturers were using slightly different material. And may be just this slight difference improves the quality

D) The average time to manufacture a sailboat has declined significantly since 1990.
Generic statement. OFS : "average time". [/color]

E) Re-finishing, polishing, and detailing a sailboat is very costly, leading many owners to trade in their sailboats for a replacement or buy a new one as opposed to repairing the original.
OFS: Replacement or re-sale

i will analyse the arguement first before going to the evaluation..the finding of the brochure is that sailboats manufactured before 1990 were of high qaulity and more durable than those manufacture after 1990..the arguement further makes a conclusion that before-1990 sailboats were particularly better than the after-1990 sailboats ..the only way we can cast doubt on this conclusion is to show that nothing has necessarily changed in the making of the boats from before 1990 and after and hence the sailboats must be of the same qaulitx value..only C is favourable for an option..c directly states that the same material that was used to build the high quality and durable sailboats before 1990 is the one that has remained for use until after 1990

Its easy if we keep it simple....
Conclusion: Sailboat manufactured prior to 1990 were stronger ones than the newer ones...

So B must be the answer.
Archit

Here's the OE-



The conclusion of the argument is that sailboat manufacturers were more attentive to producing higher quality, durable sailboats before 1990. This conclusion is based on the fact that sailboats manufactured before 1990 were more likely to retain their original finish, polish, and detailing. In order to weaken this conclusion, we should look for a reason, aside from shoddy manufacturing, that would lead sailboats built after 1990 to lose their finish at a higher rate than those built before 1990. Alternatively, the correct answer could provide another reason, aside from high-quality manufacturing, that sailboats built before 1990 retain their original finish at a higher rate.

(A) The level of resources dedicated to the manufacturing process of sailboats relative to other manufactured goods is not relevant to the argument or the conclusion.

(B) CORRECT. This answer choice provides a reason that sailboats built after 1990 may wear out more quickly than those built before 1990. If the newer sailboats are larger, accommodate more people, and spend more time at sea, it may be that they experience more wear and tear than sailboats that are smaller, have fewer passengers, and spend more time docked. Thus, the difference may lie in the use of the sailboats, and not their manufacturing.

(C) The fact that the materials used by sailboat manufacturers were constant does not affect the conclusion, as it is possible to be more attentive to producing higher quality sailboats while using substantially the same materials. For example, a manufacturer could use more of the same material in order to improve the construction.

(D) A decrease in manufacturing time could potentially serve to strengthen the conclusion, not weaken it, though the decrease could be a result of technological advances as much as a decline in manufacturing standards.

(E) The relative costs of re-finishing a sailboat as opposed to buying a new one or replacing it are not relevant to the conclusion.

Bumping for further discussion

We need to Weaken the argument's conclusion, which says that manufacturers were doing a better job before 1990 than after, and this is why boats build before 1990 are better than those build after 1990. So, we are comparing two groups, namely, boats built before 1990 and boats built after 1990.


What could weaken this reasoning? Well, maybe manufacturers have been doing a great job before and after 1990. If so, what could make boats so different in quality? Perhaps, they were used in different way? Imagine you bought two pairs of Nike sneakers: one for competition days and another for daily training sessions. The second pair will wear out in one year because you train daily, while the first pair will still be in tip-top condition if you only run 1 race in them.

Option (B) says that the boats built after 1990 were used much more heavily. So, no surprise that they have worn out more than the boats that were built before 1990. This is the correct answer choice.

Option (D) might look tempting, but we do not care about the time it takes to produce boats. Perhaps, both the manufacturing processes and equipment improved, so we certainly build boats faster these days than two centuries ago. We cannot assume that increased speed of manufacturing decreased the quality of boats. Such assumption stretches the thinking too much.

It was easy though; argument states that mfg. before 1990 were producing quality boats than after 1990 because boats manufactured before 1990 were more durable.

A. We are no way considering the other manufactured goods. - Out
B. Looks good as more use cause more depreciation to the product - Keep it
C. It's actually supporting in a way - If both materials were same which means they were compromising to utilizing them over time Out
D. May be technology has caused the Turn Around Time of mfg. - Out
E. Trap Answer if haven't understood the heart of the passage - But, if you look at closely no differentiation is given about before 1990 and after 1990 manufactured boats - Out

B is our hero then.

Hope it help, a kudoz would be appreciated.