GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Jul 2018, 02:08

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

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 137
Location: Boston,MA
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 04:45
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:44) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 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

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________

--gregspirited

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 152

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 04:53
Got to be D. What this is saying is that some of the pre-1930's hotels with poor carpentry have already been demolished.

This is a sampling question. The sample looked at by the reviewer has been distorted.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 595

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 07:38
(E). Will try to explain if correct.
Edit: I think it actually strengthens the argument. I am not sure.
SVP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2491
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 09:08
gregspirited 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

D.
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 516
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 09:47
gregspirited 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

What is the OA and OE ??
Manager
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 139
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 09:47
At first I was thinking about E, but this one strengthens the argument.
Thinking more about it, yes it is D, even if initially I eliminated that answer.
Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 137
Location: Boston,MA

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 11:29
OA is D
_________________

--gregspirited

Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 61

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 13:18
Can you explain how. I feel D is strengthening.
It explains" better the qualite ; less likely will it eb demolished". The writer is staying in such hotels constructed in 1930 which indicates they are not demolished and hence are better. If not better that the current ones ; they are still good. How does it weaken??????????
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 15:38
sztiwari wrote:
Can you explain how. I feel D is strengthening.
It explains" better the qualite ; less likely will it eb demolished". The writer is staying in such hotels constructed in 1930 which indicates they are not demolished and hence are better. If not better that the current ones ; they are still good. How does it weaken??????????

The passage concludes that carpenters were better in the 1930s, because houses surviving from that period are of higher quality than today's houses. But if all the houses that survived were the best quality houses, then maybe the carpenters back then, on the whole, weren't any better than today's--it's just that all the 1930s bad carpenters had their houses fall apart in the meantime, so we don't see them today. In other words, D tells us that all we see are the best houses from that period, so we can't draw conclusions about the quality of the houses as a whole.

(It's as if, when asked to send a random sample of students to be examined for a school assessment, a principal arranged instead to send the top 10 students. The assessors would think the school was really great--but it's really just the principal gaming the system.)
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 179

Show Tags

29 Nov 2007, 15:57
johnrb wrote:
sztiwari wrote:
Can you explain how. I feel D is strengthening.
It explains" better the qualite ; less likely will it eb demolished". The writer is staying in such hotels constructed in 1930 which indicates they are not demolished and hence are better. If not better that the current ones ; they are still good. How does it weaken??????????

The passage concludes that carpenters were better in the 1930s, because houses surviving from that period are of higher quality than today's houses. But if all the houses that survived were the best quality houses, then maybe the carpenters back then, on the whole, weren't any better than today's--it's just that all the 1930s bad carpenters had their houses fall apart in the meantime, so we don't see them today. In other words, D tells us that all we see are the best houses from that period, so we can't draw conclusions about the quality of the houses as a whole.

(It's as if, when asked to send a random sample of students to be examined for a school assessment, a principal arranged instead to send the top 10 students. The assessors would think the school was really great--but it's really just the principal gaming the system.)

i.e. survivorship bias.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 433
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Dec 2007, 14:46
moni77 wrote:
At first I was thinking about E, but this one strengthens the argument.
Thinking more about it, yes it is D, even if initially I eliminated that answer.

True, E strengthens it. It explains why pre-1930s carpenters were more skilled. It boils down to D ultimately.

Good one!
VP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1452
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 08:41
I still have a problem with option D. This is because it doesn't explain why the quality of the carpentry after the 1930's is worst than that of the carpentry before the 1930's. According to option D, if indeed the better the quality of the carpentry, the less likely that such buildings would be demolished, then how come that didn't happen to the buildings after the 1930's?

If people have kept only the good quality buildings throughout these years, then shouldn't we rather see only the good quality carpentry in the buildings in both before and after the 1930's? Option D doesn't even imply that such a practice was done only to the buildings before the 1930's, so it means that we can also apply it to the buildings after the 1930's. If so, then this option rather strengthens the argument because by keeping only the best quality buildings made after the 1930's, those buildings are still worst than the buildings made before the 1930's. So the argument is strengthened.

Can anyone help out with this one??
thanks!
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1285
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 20:15
gregspirited 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. -> out of scope since this talks about comparing hotels with other monuments
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. -> this weakens since it says post 1930 built hotels accomodate more people suggesting that the hotels are comfortable
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. -> when materials arte of same qualiuty then doubt comes on skill set of workers hence this favours the argument eliminate
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. -> out of scope this discusses consequences of better carpentry quality
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930 -> this strengthens saying that post 1930 the workers were of lower skill could not learn more

_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 393
Re: CR - Quality of work [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Aug 2008, 20:21
gregspirited 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

IMO B)

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Re: CR - Quality of work   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2008, 20:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

Events & Promotions

 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®.