It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 22:40

### 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 [?]: 372 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 11:13
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:06) correct 39% (01:24) wrong based on 1960 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:
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???
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by JarvisR on 03 Jul 2015, 00:28, edited 1 time in total.
OA updated

Kudos [?]: 372 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 782

Kudos [?]: 235 [6], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 19:45
6
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 235 [6], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 124

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

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 19:57
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???

Between C and E, I pick E and agree with you.

C is strengthening the arg by eliminating differences in material.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 372 [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 [?]: 372 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2554

Kudos [?]: 513 [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 [?]: 513 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 372 [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 [?]: 372 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 147

Kudos [?]: 436 [3], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2008, 08:37
3
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 436 [3], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 32 [3], given: 0

Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2008, 09:32
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
D it is

I may be wrong but This is what I think and I explain it with an example

Few years ago somebody ask me why do all the hollywood movies dubbed in hindi are good...
and I instinctively answered because only good movies are dubbed into hindi.

Similarly here, the reason why he found all the carpentry good in hotels before 1930, is because all the other hotels who had bad carpentry were either demolished or fallen down making the average of hotels made before 1930 with good carpentry the BEST

correct me if i'm Wrong.

Kudos [?]: 32 [3], 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 16

Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2008, 19:21
1
KUDOS
JCLEONES 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.

Hunch is (D)

Buildings built after 1930 would've had the building's longetivity as a criteria and would hence require a better quality of workmanship. Here's why I don't think the other choices work:
A. Irrelevant as it doesn't compare pre-1930 and post-1930 carpentry
B. Hotel size is not indicative of the quality of craftsmanship
C. Emphasizes the argument, rather than weaken it
D. Correct for the reason stated above
E. Emphasizes the argument
_________________

Kudos [?]: 119 [1], given: 16

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

Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 75 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 05:53
1
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 75 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 117

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2008, 08:27
1
KUDOS
A tough one, but i go with C on this one.

If the materials were the same, then maybe the carpet has been changed recently, this is why it looks so much better.

A-strenghtens
B-it's close but we don't know how many more guests can the newer hotels accomodate Could be something like 5000 vs 5500, which is not a significant difference, and in turn make the carpet go bad.
D and E are beyond the scope.

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4583 [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 [?]: 4583 [0], given: 360

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 180 [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 [?]: 180 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 117

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 13 [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

Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 181 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2008, 02:18
1
KUDOS
I am lost! Can anybody shed some light for me?

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 181 [1], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3584

Kudos [?]: 4583 [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 [?]: 4583 [0], given: 360

Re: CR (Guidebook writer)   [#permalink] 09 Feb 2008, 05:25

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by