It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 07:57

STARTING SOON:

Live Chat with Cornell Adcoms in Main Chat Room  |  R1 Interview Invites: MIT Sloan Chat  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  |  Duke Fuqua Chat (EA Decisions)


Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

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

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

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2007, 11:13
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:06) correct 39% (01:24) wrong based on 1961 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

27 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 225 [27], given: 5

Location: Boston
Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2010, 06:59
27
This post received
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 225 [27], given: 5

10 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 155

Kudos [?]: 34 [10], given: 11

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2009, 02:17
10
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
- Possible. Diffentiate between the 2 structures but no direct relationship with the caprpentary until we argue that carpentry was damanged by accomodatine more guests blah. Disregard

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
- Doesnt weaken infact strengthen.
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 gives us the idea that the old buildings have good carpentry since all other similarly aged buildings would have fall into misuse and demolished due to bad carpentry. Since the comparison is not fair in nature, it weakens the author's original argument.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
- Doesnt weaken infact strengthen.

Kudos [?]: 34 [10], given: 11

6 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 782

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

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

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2007, 19:45
6
This post received
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

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 147

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

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

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2008, 08:37
3
This post received
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

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 92

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

Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2008, 09:32
3
This post received
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

3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 308

Kudos [?]: 452 [3], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Jun 2009, 23:58
3
This post received
KUDOS
39
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 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

Kudos [?]: 452 [3], given: 1

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 235

Kudos [?]: 59 [2], given: 17

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2010, 08:11
2
This post received
KUDOS
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. Conclusion :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.Irreverent as the author compares just hotels
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. We do not care about accommodation but about skill
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.Irrelevant- How can materials have anything to do. If at all it supports the authors conclusion that even though the same tools were used older buildings were better made
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. The very reason that the author could visit these hotels is because the quality of carpentry was good and it withstood the test of time
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.Irrelevant


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

Kudos [?]: 59 [2], given: 17

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Applying for 2012 B school admissions
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 128

Kudos [?]: 48 [2], given: 32

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V35
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.6
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: A 12th OG problem, pls help to explain.(4) [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2011, 22:53
2
This post received
KUDOS
IMO D

tracyyahoo wrote:
114. Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the orginal 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
(irrelevant, we are comparing hotels, not houses and stores.)

b) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930
(irrelevant - we are talking about quality of carpentry, not of the hotels' capacity. Also if capacity of hotels do affect quality of carpentry by increasing or decreasing use of a hotel, its too far fetched a conclusion to rely upon)

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 - this option tells us that all other conditions being equal, carpentry style depended on the skill of the carpenters)

d) The better the quality of original carpentry in building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished (weakens - this option tells us that only those hotels built before 1930's survived that had better quality of carpentry, thus the comparison is not valid as we are comparing the best hotels of one era (before 1930's) with a combination of all types of hotels of one era - after 1930's)

e) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. (irrelevant - nowhere in the premises it is mentioned that apprenticeship has an effect on the skill of carpenters)

_________________

cheers
Mayank
My GMAT Journey: 720 + dare = 760

Kudos [?]: 48 [2], given: 32

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: -25 [2], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2013, 05:32
2
This post received
KUDOS
vaivish1723 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 dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer



A - comparison is not between hotels and houses
B- we are not talking about guests
C- irrelevant
D- correct
E- in a way strenthens the argument

Kudos [?]: -25 [2], given: 1

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 263

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

Re: CR Guidebook writer s23_2 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2008, 19:21
1
This post received
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
_________________

My GMAT debrief

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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 103

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

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

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2008, 05:53
1
This post received
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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 117

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

Re: CR (Guidebook writer) [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2008, 08:27
1
This post received
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

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

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

Re: CR (Guidebook writer) [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Thanks

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

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 327

Kudos [?]: 82 [1], given: 0

Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2010, 07:25
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Kudos [?]: 82 [1], given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2010
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 2

Re: I have visited hotels throughout [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2011, 21:26
1
This post received
KUDOS
+1 for D

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 2

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 30 [1], given: 18

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

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2012, 00:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
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 correct. only building remaining from 1930 are those that have superior carpentry work , and hence are not representative of all the building during 1930. So comparison btw the carpentry of building of 1930 to present day one's get weakened

Kudos [?]: 30 [1], given: 18

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 2

Schools: HBS '18
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3
Reviews Badge
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2015, 09:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
I see the confusion people are having here.

Option E actually weakly strengthens the conclusion. Conclusion is carpenters before 1930 were more skilled and after 1930 less. If average length of apprenticeship has reduced it says they are less experienced and skilled than their counterparts before.
D is correct. The representative sample taken by the author of before 1930 hotels is not a correct sample. Hence weakens.

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 2

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 396

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 10

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2016, 00:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
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 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?

So, Quality of furniture in hotels built before 1930 > Quality of furniture in hotels built after1930
Hence -> Quality of skill, care and effort is better for carpenters before 1930 > Quality of skill, care and effort is better for carpenters after1930

We need to weaken it. If we see it is A -> B -> so this is an causal argument
Some of the strategies we can use:
1) The data is biased.
2) B -> A
3) There is some other reason C, such that C -> B and A is just present there.

Lets check the options now:


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.
As soon as you see "Other", most probably, it is out of scope as we are comparing furniture in hotel built before 1930 and furniture in hotel built after 1930 -> hence Wrong

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
Guests don't have an impact on the furniture. Out of scope.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
So, the materials are of equal quality, so this option should support the conclusion instead of weaken the argument -> Hence wrong

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Now, this option talks that data provided is distorted.

For example: lets say out of 100 hotel built before 1930, 10% of the hotel have good furniture
so 10 hotels with a good quality.
Now, out of 100, 50 hotels are demolished, so if we observe the quality now, we can see 10/50 = 20% so we have a false impression that we have there are more hotels with good furniture.

lets hotel built after 1930, 15% of the hotels have good furniture. Even though 15% > 10% but as hotels were demolished, we have a wrong set to compare.
Hence the data provided is wrong or biased -> Hence the option weakens the argument.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Average length of apprenticeship doesn't indicate the quality of furniture produced is low as we need to make another assumption that length of apprenticeship is directly proportional to quality of furniture manufactured -> Can be next best answer. -> but we have D) better answer

Let us know if you have any other queries.
_________________

Reach out to us at bondwithus@gmatify.com

Image

Kudos [?]: 336 [1], given: 10

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 124

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the   [#permalink] 29 Sep 2007, 19:57

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Guidebook Writer: have visited hotels throughout the country

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.