Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 May 2017, 11:10

### 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
Status: MBAing!!!!
Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Posts: 297
Location: United States (FL)
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.65
WE: Project Management (Real Estate)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 56

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2011, 12:52
I picked D...this is representativeness problem....only the best hotels built before 1930 are still functioning, the rest were demolished. The writer is comparing all contemporary hotels to the best of the 1930's. Not a fare comparison and does not reflect the change in workmanship of carpenters.
Intern
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

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

Re: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2012, 12:01
The only reason I can select D is because all other options are either irrelevant or strengthening the argument. So its only by elimination. I see no explanation valid enough for D to be an option.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 886
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 74

Kudos [?]: 657 [0], given: 44

Re: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2012, 01:44
vaivish1723 wrote:
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 dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer

Choice D is the correct one because it explain that the building which was built in good quality less likely to be collapsed than the one which was built in worse quality. So, we do not know how many buildings less in quality are collapsed before 1930. If there are many buildings are collapsed before 1930 because of the low quality, we cannot conclude that the skill in carpenter before 1930 are better than the skills in carpenter since 1930.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Senior Manager
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 260
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 282

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2013, 11:38
Wow, just one word can make a difference. 'quality'
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 336
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 196

Kudos [?]: 384 [0], given: 4

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2013, 16:13
hi Sauravdas,

D does definitely weaken, because it says that buildings built with high quality are more likely to remain in use.

SO

The buildings from pre 1930 are likely to only be a small section of all buildings that were ever built pre 1930 and only the good ones survive. So not all pre 1930 buildings would have had such high quality work.

Hope that helps.

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Schools: IIM
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 11

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2013, 09:28
Why E is not correct?

E says that length of apprenticeship has declined after 1930 and so we can infer that if every other thing remain same, then the care, skill and effort must be enhanced after 1930 for the same quality of hotel.
Intern
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Location: Russian Federation
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2013, 13:37
sauravdas wrote:
The only reason I can select D is because all other options are either irrelevant or strengthening the argument. So its only by elimination. I see no explanation valid enough for D to be an option.

Although it's true that by POE you can eliminate all other answers quite easily, IMO, D has very strong logic.

The stem:

Author visits hotels built BEFORE 1930 and AFTER 1930, and sees that carpentry is of higher quality in MORE hotels built before 1930 than built after.

Author CONCLUDES that masters who made carpets for hotels before 1930 were more skillful than those who made carpets for hotels after 1930.

Weaken the conclusion:

D. If carpentry is of WORSE quality in a hotel, then the odds that the hotel will be abandoned and, ultimately, demolished are HIGHER.

THEREFORE: The author cannot objectively CONCLUDE that masters who made carpets for hotels before 1930 were more skillful, BECAUSE he is most probably comparing the residual number of hotels built before 1930 (that were not demolished because they had good carpentry) with the hotels built after 1930, which include hotels that have bad carpentry, but weren't yet demolished because not enough time has elapsed for that to happen.

I hope the answer is exhaustively comprehensive and I'm sorry if my grammar is a bit odd (not english native). I've been reading this forum for a while and decided to register today:) GMAT in 1 week! Good luck everyone.
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Posts: 25
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 27

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2013, 07:22
The writer assumes that 'All the carpentry done during 1930...or during a certain era...was good'....he writes with a 'those good old days...' sense.

Whatever 'Retro' he finds he assumes to be good and unique (perhaps.)

He lives no room for the facts that

1. There could be many buildings in the 1930's which used low quality material and wre eventually demolished.

2. Thr could be many buildings with good carpentry work in present era, which he might have never visited.

The 'samples' he took on which he assumes a certain conclusion are not sufficient.............D highlights the same.

It mentions that only those buildings with good carpentry survived......thus highlighting point 1.

Let me know it was helpful.
Senior Manager
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 260
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 282

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2013, 00:50
ANS D- I need to find a reason to weaken this conclusion. Maybe only slightly or indirectly.

Say there are 100 such pre-1930 old hotels. 90 of them have been demolished because the carpentry was bad

say there are 40 new hotels. Out of the 40 may be 35 hotels have a inferior quality carpentry.

So there are 10 old hotels.....> good carpentry
There are 35 new ones.........> Bad carpentry

Can I conclude that the old hotel is better than the new??
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 4

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2013, 12:40
reasons to eliminate A B C & E are convincing

Though a tough que to choose "D" as correct choice
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 103
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q51 V25
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 52

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2013, 01:17
TehJay wrote:
vaivish1723 wrote:
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?

We want to weaken the argument that carpenters before 1930 were better than carpenters after 1930.

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. The writer isn't comparing hotels to other buildings - irrelevant.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. Irrelevant

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. STRENGTHENS the argument - if both sets of carpenters have the same quality tools, then the pre-1930's carpenters were probably doing better work with those tools

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. Makes sense - it's not that every single hotel built before 1930 was better than the ones built after, but instead that the VERY BEST hotels are still around, while the lesser ones have long since been demolished. The proportion of badly built hotels before 1930 could have been much higher than it is now, but all of the bad ones have been demolished and replaced with modern buildings, so the writer is only seeing the best of the best that were built.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. Would strengthen the argument - carpenters train less now than they used to.

I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer

Why it is now E ? why is E irrelevant .. its telling the bad quality work after 1930 is cause of length of apprenticeship .. not because carpenters lack in skill or cared less ..

consider it a cause and effect .. more care and skill >>>>> good furniture ... now I introduce something else, hence it should weaken it .. isnt it ?
_________________

Forget Kudos ... be an altruist

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 314
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 23

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2014, 09:53
Why can't one infer the following from A: "Original carpentry in hotels is much better than the carpentry in other structures" -- Since there is crappy carpentry in other structures, it shows that the carpenters didn't always have more skill?
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 160
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 175 [0], given: 69

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2014, 10:13
russ9 wrote:
Why can't one infer the following from A: "Original carpentry in hotels is much better than the carpentry in other structures" -- Since there is crappy carpentry in other structures, it shows that the carpenters didn't always have more skill?

Yes. One can infer as you mentioned, but doesn't differentiate difference of works between that before 1930 and after 1930. Your inference can be applied in both cases.

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.

Stmnt comparison is between Work before 1930 Vs work afer 1930. (work= Hotel)

Conclusion: Work before 1930 is done with more skill, care.

To weaken the conclusion means 'there is no difference in way carpentry work before 1930 and after 1930'

Statement (A) doesn't hit this conclusion. It compared different kinds of works before 1930. Comparison should be between apple to apple.

Please, hit +kudo, if this helps
Intern
Joined: 05 Feb 2014
Posts: 48
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 49

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2014, 06:58
vaivish, malik, nishant - try using POE and you will narrow down to 1~2 choices.

Irrelevant 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.

Irrelevant. Some ppl might try to relate it - more guests - > more damage. If less damage means better work /quality (but this is stretching it too far in GMAT) B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

Strengthens coz is material is same, then workmanship has to be better. 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.

Irrelevant E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

Now go back to D. Building still there - > original carpentry is good quality - > it is not the workmanship, but the quality of material. Hence, weakens the claim of high quality of workmanship by the author.

I don't understand how E is the wrong choice. Since the original carpenter spent more time as apprentice then the later ones obviously the original carpentry was of better quality. Please explain
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 20
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 1

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2014, 02:21
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.

Conclusion : carpenters before 1930 worked with more skill.
the passage is about work of carpenters in hotels before 1930 and about work of carpenters in hotels after.

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.-- We should compare hotels to hotels.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.- OFS
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
- OFS
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. - Correct. As the sample is not representative. The author is visiting only hotels of good quality.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. OFS
Current Student
Joined: 20 Jan 2014
Posts: 176
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Marketing
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 120

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 10:01
I got confused with B. After reading explanation i understand that why D is right.
Kudos to u guys
_________________

Affiliations: Oracle certified java programmer , adobe certified developer
Joined: 14 Jul 2013
Posts: 124
GMAT Date: 02-12-2015
GPA: 3.87
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 37

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2014, 22:28
D should be it, if you read other options none of them weakens the conclusion, only D is left.
Not 100 % sounds corrects but the best in lot.
_________________

IF IT IS TO BE , IT IS UP TO ME

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2015
Posts: 6
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V32
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.53
Followers: 0

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

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2015, 07:44
I don't understand how D works, even though I originally chose it.

I understand that it explains why a lot of hotels built before 1930 of are a high quality, but this also applies to hotels built after 1930's, meaning only buildings with high quality carpentry would be standing, regardless of when they were built.

So to me.... if D were correct, then all the hotels built after 1930 that were less superior to those built before 1930 would have been demolished by electing D, and thus, all hotels would have equal quality carpentry, which goes against the whole premise and advice given in the prompt. Choosing D, to me, seems contradictory to the prompt.
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3658
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1691

Kudos [?]: 13559 [0], given: 1907

Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2015, 21:15
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 build afterwards. [This is a factual observation.] Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, car, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels build subsequently. [This is a conclusion that would explain the factual observation.]

We are asked to weaken the argument. This means, we have to find another explanation for the factual observation (pre-1930 have good carpentry) that would support it even when the conclusion (pre-1930 carpenters were better than carpenters since) is false. In other words, even if pre-1930 carpenters are no better than later carpenters, why would the critic still observes much higher proportions of good carpentry in pre-1930 hotels?

Notice, some logical reflection has clarified our task for us, but there’s really no glaringly obvious alternate explanation for the higher proportions of good carpentry in pre-1930 hotels. We will have to look for relevant perspectives among the answer choices.

A. The quality of original carpentry in hotels is general far superior to the quality of carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
True, but not helpful. Pre-1930 hotels had better carpentry than pre-1930 houses and stores. Post-1930 hotels have better carpentry than post-1930 houses and stores. This fact does not explain why any difference would not be apparent between pre-1930 hotels and post-1930 hotels.

B. Hotels build since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
How many guests a hotel can accommodate has virtually no bearing on the quality of the carpentry. If the observations about differences in quality of carpentry were made from some kind of survey of hundreds of hotel guests, perhaps we could deduce that more had stayed in pre-1930 hotels simply because those hotels can accommodate more guests. But, the observation was in fact made by a single guidebook writer, a single person, who presumably stayed in a very large number of hotels. That persons conclusions presumably would have absolutely nothing to do with how many other people are staying in the hotel. This fact may well be true, but it’s irrelevant to this argument.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
Same materials in both time periods would not provide an alternative explanation for the difference in quality between pre-1930 and post-1930 hotels. In fact, arguably, this fact would strengthen the argument, not weaken 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.
This is fascinating. Old buildings with fine carpentry are more likely to be around still. Old buildings with mediocre carpentry are more likely to be no longer with us. Remember, the guidebook writer was implicitly speaking of proportions. The factual observation was, essentially: if we look at the proportion of pre-1930 hotel that have fine carpentry, and the proportion of post-1930 hotel that have fine carpentry, then the first proportion is greater than the second proportion. The guidebook writer argued that differences in the quality of the carpenters caused this difference in proportions.

This new fact provides an alternative explanation. Suppose carpenters now are just as good, just as skillful and careful, as carpenters from before 1930. For simplicity, suppose, on average, 3% of hotels built have fine carpentry, and the other 97% have mediocre/substandard carpentry, and assume that was just as true before 1930 as it is now. For hotels build before 1930, essentially all of those hotels with poor carpentry would have been knocked down, and the only ones still standing would be the 3% that had fine carpentry. Thus, when the guidebook writer goes to pre-1930 hotels still standing, still in service, the carpentry in almost all of them is of high quality. By contrast, hotels build in the past decade are all still standing, regardless of the quality of the carpentry. When the guidebook writer goes to these, only 3% have fine carpentry, and the rest do not. Thus, the guidebook writer could experience vast differences in the proportion of hotels with fine carpentry, and it would have nothing to do with the inherent quality of the respective carpenters. This is the correct answer.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declines significantly since 1930.
If anything, this would strengthen the argument. It would explain why pre-1930 carpenters would be more skillful. This does not weaken the argument.

Notice that we were asked to weaken the argument, and a couple of the answers did the opposite: provided information to strengthen the argument. That’s a typical GMAT CR pattern. Similarly, when you are asked to strengthen an argument, expect to see a couple answer choices that weaken the argument.

Notice, also, in all five answer choices, our reasoning was deeply bound to the context itself. We had to think through the details of the context to separate what was relevant from what was not relevant. That is quite different from the exercises of formal logic, which tends toward abstraction. GMAT CR logic is all about getting our hand dirty in the rough and tumble of real-world issues. That what the GMAT asks you to do because, once you’re a manager with your MBA and you’re out in the business world making decisions, that’s precisely what you are going to be doing all day every day in your job.

- magoosh
_________________
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 195
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 45

Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2015, 20:30
This is Pattern in GMAT CRs where Comparison is made in premise and Conclusion is made on that comparison.

Say for Example :
Premise : A is Compared to B based on it's Price.
Conclusion : A should be consumed more by developing country population, since it is cheaper than B in price

(Something like above)

Correct Weakener : Option which says, Comparison is invalid or inappropriate or disproportionate. Comparison is biased.
Correct Strengthener : Option Which says Comparison is valid and hold true, removes the scope of parity or bias in comparison.

Option D is only option which says, Comparison itself is bias.

Hence Option D is potential Weakener.

P.S bumping if some one find it useful
Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country   [#permalink] 09 Jul 2015, 20:30

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 48 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
41 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 38 26 Sep 2015, 14:50
2 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 10 04 Jun 2016, 09:16
5 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 5 04 Jun 2016, 09:18
10 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 16 29 Jun 2016, 07:15
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 10 04 Jun 2016, 09:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by