It is currently 22 Jun 2017, 16:55

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

Author Message
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 546
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2008, 18:20
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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.
----
This was the second question in my practice test today.(SET23). I know it is easy question.
But I fell for the trap. Feeling very very bad for my performance.
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1554
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10

Show Tags

22 Apr 2008, 19:35
3
KUDOS
IN many CR questions, the argument makes a statement based on a comparison of 2 samples. In these situations, we should check for validity of both the samples. Sometimes, the interpretation of the data is correct, but the sample is too limited or contaminated by both whats present and whats not present in the sample.

So, we compare samples of pre-1930 hotels and post-1930 hotels. We find that pre-1930 hotels have better architecture. Does that mean carpenters prior to 1930 worked with more skill and care. Possibly. But, what if there were many hotels built with horrible skill and care. and what if none of those survived due to their bad carpentry. This significantly alters how we look at the sample of pre-1930 hotels and definitely weakens the conclusion made in the argument.

D implies that if the carpentry wasnt good, the hotel would not have survived until now; this is inline with our reasoning above.

So, IMHO D is the answer.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 495
Location: Kolkata

Show Tags

22 Apr 2008, 18:49
My opinion C.
Because if the material was same and not different in quality,the argument weakens.Rest all are out of scope.Correct me if i am wrong.Not that good at Cr's.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1895
Schools: CBS, Kellogg

Show Tags

22 Apr 2008, 20:17
IN many CR questions, the argument makes a statement based on a comparison of 2 samples. In these situations, we should check for validity of both the samples. Sometimes, the interpretation of the data is correct, but the sample is too limited or contaminated by both whats present and whats not present in the sample.

So, we compare samples of pre-1930 hotels and post-1930 hotels. We find that pre-1930 hotels have better architecture. Does that mean carpenters prior to 1930 worked with more skill and care. Possibly. But, what if there were many hotels built with horrible skill and care. and what if none of those survived due to their bad carpentry. This significantly alters how we look at the sample of pre-1930 hotels and definitely weakens the conclusion made in the argument.

D implies that if the carpentry wasnt good, the hotel would not have survived until now; this is inline with our reasoning above.

So, IMHO D is the answer.

VERY NICE LESSON LEARNED! THANKS
_________________
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2950

Show Tags

22 Apr 2008, 23:19
I'd say D.

saravalli 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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 320
Location: India

Show Tags

23 Apr 2008, 05:03
Superb explanation nc +1
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 495
Location: Kolkata

Show Tags

23 Apr 2008, 09:29
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 546

Show Tags

26 Apr 2008, 12:14
Thanks a bunch! OA: D
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 786

Show Tags

26 Apr 2008, 15:10
Conclusion: Quality of Carpentry Work in Hotels built before 1930 is superior to that of the Hotels 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. [Other structures other than hotels is irrelevant to the argument – eliminate it]

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built
before 1930. [Hotel Capacity is out of scope – eliminate it]

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly
different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930 [Material availability is not relevant” – 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. [Hold it]

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly
since 1930. [ Average Length of apprenticeship is irrelevant – eliminate it]

Re: CR -hotels   [#permalink] 26 Apr 2008, 15:10
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
I have few CR Questions for which i do not have any OA's. I 10 06 Sep 2010, 11:28
1 Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 14 18 Jul 2008, 08:39
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 6 21 Jan 2008, 08:30
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 13 08 Aug 2008, 20:21
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the 8 21 Oct 2007, 13:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.