It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 08:30

### 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: I have visited hotels throughout the

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2007, 10:15
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that inthose 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 typicallyworked 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 builtbefore 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 [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2007, 10:27
B.

A. I would have chose this one but the author did only make the comment specifically about the hotels not to general carpenter.
B. Skill did not diminish but it is used to create different goal, to accompany more people than to look good.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 360

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

Re: SET 23 Ques 2 : Good CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2007, 11:19
E - is the one that at least made some sense.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 909

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 0

Re: SET 23 Ques 2 : Good CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Oct 2007, 11:38
s_positive wrote:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that inthose 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 typicallyworked 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 builtbefore 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.

went for E

Kudos [?]: 295 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Re: SET 23 Ques 2 : Good CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 07:39
beckee529 wrote:
s_positive wrote:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that inthose 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 typicallyworked 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 builtbefore 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.

went for E

E actually provides support for the conclusion of the argument, which is not what is asked.
i:e Because length apprenticeship reduce, training received by carpenters lessened so did their skills which explains the low quality of work.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1367

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 07:50
E is like agreeing to say that the quality decreased 'cos of the training issue. So it rather supports than disagreeing with the conclusion

A is close to the thing.

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.

How can quality be concluded just by taking some hotels architecture? Consistency is the key

So this reasoning may question the conclusion

B is out of scope

C this would support the conclusion

D supports the conclusion

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 18

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

Re: SET 23 Ques 2 : Good CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 08:29
s_positive wrote:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that inthose 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 typicallyworked 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 builtbefore 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'm guessing nobody really knows a confirmed answer, so I disagree with everyone so far.

The only logical answer to me is D

The evidence is not just for comparison if D is true... if only better quality carpentry will survive (poor carpentry will be demolished) it makes sense that only quality carpentry exists from the 30s... the rest has been demolished

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

Director
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 867

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 7

Schools: University of Chicago, Wharton School
Re: SET 23 Ques 2 : Good CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 08:56
s_positive wrote:
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that inthose 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 typicallyworked 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 builtbefore 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.

E too though it also doesnot strongly weaken the argument.

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 13:40
wspfaris... u hit the nail on its head.

The OA is indeed D and a little reasoning can confirm that.
I feel its very tough to get these kinds right on the first attempt.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

21 Oct 2007, 13:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

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

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.