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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
What do András from Hungary, Pablo from Mexico, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Rishab from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Grab 20% off any Target Test Prep GMAT Focus plan during our Flash Sale. Just enter the coupon code FLASH20 at checkout to save up to $320. The offer ends on Tuesday, April 30.
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
In this conversation with Ankit Mehra, IESE MBA and CEO & Co-Founder, of GyanDhan, we will discuss how prospective MBA students can finance their MBA education with education loans and scholarships.
What do András from Hungary, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Saahil from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
29 Nov 2007, 04:45
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
100%
(01:44)
correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 6
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
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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??????????
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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.)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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.)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
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)
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]