It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 00:34

### 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: have visited hotels throughout the country

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 21:11
gmatnub wrote:
IMO D

It can be inferred from the statement that only the best of the best hotels built before 1930 are still around, the rest are demolished. Thus, the author did not get to see the full quality spectrum of hotels built before 1930.

BINGO.............OA is D

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2554

Kudos [?]: 511 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 21:15
singh_amit19 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.

I picked E.........assumption over here is quality requires skill, care, and effort, which is relatively lesser in post 1930 carpenters...need to weaken the assumption.....so followed X not causing Y it's Z causing Y...views plz???

This is clearly D.

D explains that it wasn't that all carpenters were better skilled and worked harder, but that the buildings remaining in acceptable shape were built of higher quality.

E: This is a very weak choice. It seems to weaken the conclusion, but perhaps apprenticeships for would-be carpenters does not need to be as long as before.

Kudos [?]: 511 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 22:35
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
singh_amit19 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.

I picked E.........assumption over here is quality requires skill, care, and effort, which is relatively lesser in post 1930 carpenters...need to weaken the assumption.....so followed X not causing Y it's Z causing Y...views plz???

This is clearly D.

D explains that it wasn't that all carpenters were better skilled and worked harder, but that the buildings remaining in acceptable shape were built of higher quality.

E: This is a very weak choice. It seems to weaken the conclusion, but perhaps apprenticeships for would-be carpenters does not need to be as long as before.

Great man!

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 248

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

Schools: Ross, Kellogg, Darden (i/v)
Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2008, 19:04
I would go for B.

OA pls?

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

Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 95

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

Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2008, 06:42
D

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

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 09:26
It is D.

Other reason: only the best hotels have survived since 1930.
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 0

Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 09:32
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
az780 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 material 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.

I thing this one is D.

A. Irrelevant
B. Irrelevant
C. Strengthen: If the materials are the same then the only other factor is workmanship.
E. Strengthen: If the appreticeship is shorter then they have less training.

D. This one indicates that buildings with poor quality before 1930's were demolished. So the only buildings left standing from before the 1930's have high quality. So the carpenters could have the same skill now or even better it's just that they are only being compared to the good quality buildings that werent demolished.

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 117

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

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 09:47
Ahhh damn. I misread the argument. I understood carpet instead of carpentry.

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

Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 18:01
Conclusion: Carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skills, care and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

(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. [This weakens the argument as carpentry in hotels is generally superior – implies less emphasis on carpenters’ care and effort – hold it]

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. [Hotel accommodation is out of scope of the argument – eliminate it]

(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the material available to carpenters working after 1930. [The material available for carpenters is out of scope of argument – eliminate it]

(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.[Hotel usage is out of scope of the argument – eliminate it]

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.[This strengthens the conclusion – eliminate it]

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2008, 00:41
OA is D.

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2008, 05:25
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.

[h1] hotels built before 1930
[h2] hotels built after 1930
[c] carpentry work
[c1] carpenters before 1930
[c2] carpenters after 1930

Guidebook writer: [c] in [h1] is better than [c] in [h2].
[Assumption: there are no other reasons why [c] in [h1] is better than [c] in [h2] excepting difference in skills between [c1] and [c2]]
Therefore, [c1] who made [c] in [h1] is better than [c2] who made [c] in [h2]

D. There is other reason why [c] in [h1] is better than [c] in [h2]: [h1] with better [c] is more likely survived. And therefore, now we have [h1] with better [c]

Hope this help
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Kudos [?]: 4575 [0], given: 360

Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2008, 12:25
Thanks walker for your explanation. Yes, this really helped.

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 810

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2009, 07:01
OA is D as I remember. D seems appropriate too.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Kudos [?]: 373 [0], given: 106

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 782

Kudos [?]: 900 [0], given: 56

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2009, 08:24
agree with above explanation. IMO D
_________________

Kudos [?]: 900 [0], given: 56

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 593

Kudos [?]: 1129 [0], given: 100

Location: Kolkata,India
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2009, 19:22
I ve attempted this question before, so i know it is a D

but on the actual test, I would have picked E the first time
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/countdown-beginshas-ended-85483-40.html#p649902

Kudos [?]: 1129 [0], given: 100

Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 33

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 01:32
superd question guys and great analysis .. thanks ..
_________________

Regards,
Saaquib

If you find any grammatical mistake in my post please don't hesitate in pointing out.

Please +1 if you find this post useful.

My Blog

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 268

Kudos [?]: 529 [0], given: 18

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

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 01:42
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
singh_amit19 wrote:
I picked E.........assumption over here is quality requires skill, care, and effort, which is relatively lesser in post 1930 carpenters...need to weaken the assumption.....so followed X not causing Y it's Z causing Y...views plz???

This is clearly D.

D explains that it wasn't that all carpenters were better skilled and worked harder, but that the buildings remaining in acceptable shape were built of higher quality.

E: This is a very weak choice. It seems to weaken the conclusion, but perhaps apprenticeships for would-be carpenters does not need to be as long as before.

Do you mean: that the viewer has only see few good buildings from the past as all others were demolished because they were not good. So we cant say about carpenters work from the past.

Am i correct in my understanding?

Kudos [?]: 529 [0], given: 18

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 5

Location: Leeds
Schools: SBS, JBS(ding w/o interview), HEC
WE 1: SCI-12 yrs
Guidebook writer : I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 04:33
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

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 5

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1468

Kudos [?]: 299 [0], given: 31

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 05:39
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.

Kudos [?]: 299 [0], given: 31

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 929

Kudos [?]: 1502 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 06:25

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

Kudos [?]: 1502 [0], given: 40

Re: CR/Weaken   [#permalink] 12 May 2010, 06:25

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6    Next  [ 107 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by