GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 20 May 2018, 16:40

### 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 country and hav

Author Message
Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 564
Location: United States (LA)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 09:18
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.
It is completely out of scope as we are not comparing with other structures.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
This option is also out of scope as accommodation of guests is irrelevant wrt topic in discussion.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it states that quality of materials has not deteriorated much

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 is a weakener as it explains that if the quality of work was not good in 1930's,then the hotel would have been probably demolished.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it explains work done now by the carpenters is not as good as it was in 1930's

Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 564
Location: United States (LA)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 09:19
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.
It is completely out of scope as we are not comparing with other structures.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
This option is also out of scope as accommodation of guests is irrelevant wrt topic in discussion.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it states that quality of materials has not deteriorated much

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 is a weakener as it explains that if the quality of work was not good in 1930's,then the hotel would have been probably demolished.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it explains work done now by the carpenters is not as good as it was in 1930's

Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 564
Location: United States (LA)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2016, 09:21
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.
It is completely out of scope as we are not comparing with other structures.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
This option is also out of scope as accommodation of guests is irrelevant wrt topic in discussion.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it states that quality of materials has not deteriorated much

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 is a weakener as it explains that if the quality of work was not good in 1930's,then the hotel would have been probably demolished.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This option is actually a strengthener as it explains work done now by the carpenters is not as good as it was in 1930's

Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2016
Posts: 402
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
GPA: 3.8
WE: Operations (Commercial Banking)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2016, 13:45
to weaken an argument you need not necessarily invalidate the conclusion but also find an alternative reason that leads to the conclusion such as option D which means it is not about skill of the carpenters rather the intent to ensure the buildings are not disused and demolished that lead to superior work.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2016
Posts: 47
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 07:15
Hi,

The argument is :

carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

We need to weaken the above statement. i.e show carpenters working before 1930 were not all superior..

D.The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

If above statement needs to be true we have to assume that the buildings before 1930 have been already demolished.

How can we assume that when the Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930..that is those buildings still exist.

I am confused!
Intern
Status: Preparing Applications and looking for consultants
Joined: 25 Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V30
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.44
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2016, 07:36
The explanation provided for D absolutely do not make any sense. It's a general statement which has no effect on the argument OR it is at least strengthening the carpenters who worked before 1930s.

Couldn't zero in on any answer. POE might get us to D but still it cannot weaken the Original argument in any way.
Debatable question.
Intern
Joined: 17 Feb 2015
Posts: 17
WE: Sales (Consulting)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2016, 15:43
saran3h wrote:
The explanation provided for D absolutely do not make any sense. It's a general statement which has no effect on the argument OR it is at least strengthening the carpenters who worked before 1930s.

Couldn't zero in on any answer. POE might get us to D but still it cannot weaken the Original argument in any way.
Debatable question.

http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/

Explained in detail!!
Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 100
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2016, 12:14
This answer removes my doubts.Spent many days on this question.Finally,doubt cleared
Thanks

TehJay wrote:
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
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2015
Posts: 53
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 630 Q42 V34
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2016, 14:24
Well, I think D is correct because the representative sample of two hotels is not the same.
If good ones stay ( old hotels) then you are comparing only good ones with bad as well as good ones ( new hotels), which is not a fair comparision.
Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 151
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2016, 23:46
D is indirectly weakening the conclusion

Author concludes saying "before 1930, more care and skill is taken to build hotels"

Option D is saying "If quality is good, it is used more and hence the building build after 1930 is more destroyed because they are used more because of its superior quality"
Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Posts: 91
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2016, 06:19
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

if all the buidings with low quality of work was demolished, which were built before 1930. Then all good quality remains and makes it look like workers built higher quality buildings.
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2016
Posts: 30
Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2016, 16:03
I got this wrong, but what a beautiful question! Thought: current year isn't mentioned explicitly. I wonder how things would have changed it it were.
_________________

Current Student
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 94
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V27
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Project Management (Health Care)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2016, 02:56
sagarsabnis 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.
(8) 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 is the logical chain: More skills/care/effort --> better quality of carpentry
If we find somthing else that led to better carpentry we will weaken this conclusion.

Choice D says: Less liklehood that a hotel be demolished <-correlated-> better quality.
- it might be the case that people did not want their hotel to be demolished so they invested in better quality of carpentry.

Hence D is correct
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 255
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 620 Q50 V24
GRE 1: 314 Q167 V147
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2017, 08:32
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
This is a superb question !!
In my 2 cents,
options D introduces the possibility that the hotels with lower carpentry quality were demolished.Thus,the remaining buildings are incomparable since they are not the represent the actual quality of carpentry work.
Manager
Joined: 30 Dec 2015
Posts: 89
GPA: 3.92
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2017, 21:03
If this was a strengthen question, can someone confirm if "(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930" would be the correct answer?
_________________

If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1906
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2017, 01:16
D is the answer. There is a similar pattern in the following question.
The survey of electric engineers concludes that the more hours the student study for the test, the more chance they pass the test. The weakener is the survey does not include those who fails the test.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 259
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2017, 07:13
irajeevsingh wrote:
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.

a competing answer like b is wrong because B need an assumption that accomodating more guesses makes the carpenter works become worse. it a close answer require an assumption, it is wrong.

this is hard because choice D is hard to realize
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 755
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2017, 10:24
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

SVP
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 2446
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 09:07
Expert's post
Top Contributor
gurpreet07 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.

This question could be categorized as a weaken the argument question or as a flawed argument question.

The Guidebook writer is trying to present a statistical argument, but fails to recognize that the SAMPLE is not representative of the ENTIRE POPULATION.

The SAMPLE consists of pre-1930's hotels that are still standing
The writer uses this sample to make a conclusion about ALL hotels built before 1930 (hotels that are still standing and those that are no longer standing)
So, there's already a problem with the argument, since it's quite possible that the carpentry in many pre-1930 hotels was so awful that those hotels fell apart very quickly.
So, just because the pre-1930's hotels that are still standing have great carpentry, we can't then make sweeping conclusions about the carpentry in ALL pre-1930's hotels

Answer choice D essentially says "the better the carpentry, the greater the chances of a hotel's survival"
It points out the possibility that many pre-1930's hotels could have had bad carpentry and, thus, had to be demolished.

Cheers,
Brent
_________________

Brent Hanneson – Founder of gmatprepnow.com

Manager
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 75
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2017, 16:24
hanumayamma wrote:
Conclusion: Carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skills, care and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

(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. [This weakens the argument as carpentry in hotels is generally superior – implies less emphasis on carpenters’ care and effort – hold it]

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

(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the material available to carpenters working after 1930. [The material available for carpenters is out of scope of argument – 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.[Hotel usage is out of scope of the argument – eliminate it]

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.[This strengthens the conclusion – eliminate it]

I have a question here!
choice B says more people in hotels after 1930, so we can conclude more guests, more use, more harm! so the hotels before 1930 which had less guess look better!

am I wrong?
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2017, 16:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9    Next  [ 167 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

 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®.