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

It is currently 26 May 2019, 11:30

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Aug 2018
Posts: 1
Re: QOTD: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2018, 22:46
GMATNinja My reason for rejecting option D was that the buildings built after 1930 should also be diuse and demolished which is not the case as per the passage. The lower quality buildings built after 1930 are still standing. This violates the established premise. Why the carpentry skill only valid for pre-1930 hotels and not after 1930 hotels.

I choose option E because it says that the average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined and this may be the reason for less skill but the apprentice may be putting and effort in their work but due to less training they might able to make quality material. I know my reasoning is flawed because it only weakens a part of the conclusion and not the whole conclusion and that weakener still depends on an assumption. But compared to option D, this choice seems more plausible.
Tell me if my reasoning is wrong. Thanks
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2490
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2018, 19:52
bhavya4793 wrote:
GMATNinja My reason for rejecting option D was that the buildings built after 1930 should also be diuse and demolished which is not the case as per the passage. The lower quality buildings built after 1930 are still standing. This violates the established premise. Why the carpentry skill only valid for pre-1930 hotels and not after 1930 hotels.

Let's take another look at D.

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

So if the quality of original carpentry is lower in a building, then that building is more likely to fall into disuse. However, this choice does not say that a building with low quality carpentry will immediately fall into disuse upon being built.

Imagine that we build one group of buildings with low quality carpentry and, at the same exact time, another group of buildings with high quality carpentry:

  • After 10 years, perhaps all of the buildings are still standing.
  • After 20 years, perhaps 1 building from the low-quality group has fallen, while all of the buildings from the high-quality group still stand.
  • With each passing decade, it becomes more and more likely that a building from the low-quality group will fall into disuse and be demolished.
  • After a century, maybe a couple buildings from the high-quality group have been demolished, while most buildings in the low-quality group have been demolished.

Coming back to the argument, perhaps some of the low-quality, post-1930 hotels have already been demolished. But it is certainly possible that many of the newer low-quality hotels are still standing.

And when we consider a group of low-quality hotels built before 1930 vs. a group of low-quality hotels built after 1930, odds are that a higher percentage of the pre-1930 group has fallen into disuse over time. This would certainly skew the data observed by the writer.

As I've written earlier, we cannot PROVE that this is the case. But by providing an alternative explanation for the writer's observations, choice (D) certainly weakens the author's argument.

bhavya4793 wrote:
I choose option E because it says that the average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined and this may be the reason for less skill but the apprentice may be putting and effort in their work but due to less training they might able to make quality material. I know my reasoning is flawed because it only weakens a part of the conclusion and not the whole conclusion and that weakener still depends on an assumption. But compared to option D, this choice seems more plausible.

Here's choice (E) again:
Quote:
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

Sure, no part of this choice tells us about the carpenters' amount of care and effort. But apprenticeship is where carpenters develop skills, and carpenters' skills are still part of the conclusion. So If the average length of post-1930 apprenticeships are shorter, then we're more inclined to accept the conclusion than reject it. This may not prove the conclusion, but it definitely doesn't weaken the conclusion. Without more information, (E) is more likely to strengthen the argument than weaken it.

This is why (D) creates much more doubt about the conclusion than (E). I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 931
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2018, 15:02
Quote:
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.


Hi my honorable experts GMATNinja, MartyMurray, VeritasPrepBrian, AjiteshArun, VeritasKarishma
This is just for curiosity--->
Is there any chance to add another possible correct choice for this CR?
Thanks__
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 931
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2018, 15:29
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry.

Now the author's argument is in trouble. The author says, "Most of the pre-1930 hotels have better quality. Therefore, pre-1930 carpenters were better." But what if many or even most of the hotels built before 1930 are no longer there? What if they had low-quality carpentry and were already demolished? Perhaps most of the low-quality pre-1930 hotels have been demolished and most of the high-quality pre-1930 hotels are still standing. If (D) is true, then we have no idea what proportion of hotels built before 1930 were high/low-quality. In other words, the writer's data only includes pre-1930 hotels that are still standing and does not take into account pre-1930 hotels that have already been demolished.

Although choice (D) doesn't necessarily disprove the author's conclusion, it certainly weakens the author's reasoning by offering an alternative way to explain the writer's observations. We can no longer conclude that the author's POSSIBLE explanation is the correct one. Now we need more information to reach a logical conclusion. Thus, choice (D) looks good.

Hi GMATNinja,
Thanks for your nice explanation. I'm happy with your extraordinary explanation, but I'm a bit confused about the highlightedpart that you wrote above.
Q: Is it necessary/mandatory to disprove the author's conclusion to weaken this types of CR questions?
Thanks__
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 2647
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2018, 19:45
1
AsadAbu wrote:
his is just for curiosity--->
Is there any chance to add another possible correct choice for this CR?
Thanks__
Sure. We can come up with any number of weaken options for this (or any other) question. But why would we? There can be at most only one correct option in any GMAT CR question :)
_________________
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 931
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Dec 2018, 01:44
AjiteshArun wrote:
AsadAbu wrote:
This is just for curiosity--->
Is there any chance to add another possible correct choice for this CR?
Thanks__
Sure. We can come up with any number of weaken options for this (or any other) question. But why would we? There can be at most only one correct option in any GMAT CR question :)

:) :) Actually, I tried to find out at least one possible correct choice other than official correct choice for this CR, but I am fail! So, could you help me to find out any possible correct choice?

For the highlighted part: In most of the assumption question, we can find many more possible correct choices, but I did not find any correct choice for this one!
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 931
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Dec 2018, 03:06
bhavya4793 wrote:
I choose option E because it says that the average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined and this may be the reason for less skill but the apprentice may be putting and effort in their work but due to less training they might able to make quality material. I know my reasoning is flawed because it only weakens a part of the conclusion and not the whole conclusion and that weakener still depends on an assumption. But compared to option D, this choice seems more plausible.
Tell me if my reasoning is wrong. Thanks

The guidebook writer will take E as evidence for HIS point!! So, E is definitely wrong way.
Thanks__
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2490
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2018, 19:31
AsadAbu wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry.

Now the author's argument is in trouble. The author says, "Most of the pre-1930 hotels have better quality. Therefore, pre-1930 carpenters were better." But what if many or even most of the hotels built before 1930 are no longer there? What if they had low-quality carpentry and were already demolished? Perhaps most of the low-quality pre-1930 hotels have been demolished and most of the high-quality pre-1930 hotels are still standing. If (D) is true, then we have no idea what proportion of hotels built before 1930 were high/low-quality. In other words, the writer's data only includes pre-1930 hotels that are still standing and does not take into account pre-1930 hotels that have already been demolished.

Although choice (D) doesn't necessarily disprove the author's conclusion, it certainly weakens the author's reasoning by offering an alternative way to explain the writer's observations. We can no longer conclude that the author's POSSIBLE explanation is the correct one. Now we need more information to reach a logical conclusion. Thus, choice (D) looks good.

Hi GMATNinja,
Thanks for your nice explanation. I'm happy with your extraordinary explanation, but I'm a bit confused about the highlightedpart that you wrote above.
Q: Is it necessary/mandatory to disprove the author's conclusion to weaken this types of CR questions?
Thanks__

Absolutely not. That is my point -- choice (D) does not disprove the conclusion, but it certainly weakens the argument. And we were asked which choice most seriously weakens the argument, so (D) is a very attractive choice.

I hope this resolves your doubt!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 931
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2018, 09:55
GMATNinja wrote:
AsadAbu wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,
Thanks for your nice explanation. I'm happy with your extraordinary explanation, but I'm a bit confused about the highlightedpart that you wrote above.
Q: Is it necessary/mandatory to disprove the author's conclusion to weaken this types of CR questions?
Thanks__

Absolutely not. That is my point -- choice (D) does not disprove the conclusion, but it certainly weakens the argument. And we were asked which choice most seriously weakens the argument, so (D) is a very attractive choice.

I hope this resolves your doubt!

Hi GMATNinja, Now it's clear to me. Thanks for your cordial response though it's a bit late! :)
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Posts: 104
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2019, 03:19
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Hi..I had a doubt regarding the following explanation provided by GMATNinja for choice (D):

"Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry."
My confusion:

So to accept choice (D) as the weakener, we have to further assume that there were many hotels built in the pre-1930s which have subsequently been demolished thus proving that they were of low quality.But we cannot say for sure that this is true. May be all the pre-1930s hotels are still standing , thus proving that they were indeed better built than those of post-1930s...

Now analysing choice (E):
"The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930."

If this were true we can say that the carpenters of post-1930 era hasn't been equipped with the proper training as were those of the pre-1930s era...Indeed this could have been false...But as in (D) a small assumption in (E) that the shortening of the length of apprenticeship has led to the carpenters of the post-1930s not being as equipped in the craft as those of the pre-1930s negates the possibility that the carpenters of the previous generations worked with more skill and care than those of the later generations. Maybe it was just the extra knowledge acquired during the apprenticeship that had made all the difference.

Please explain where am I going wrong....
CEO
CEO
User avatar
V
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 2647
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2019, 19:34
Debashis Roy wrote:
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Hi..I had a doubt regarding the following explanation provided by GMATNinja for choice (D):

"Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry."
My confusion:

So to accept choice (D) as the weakener, we have to further assume that there were many hotels built in the pre-1930s which have subsequently been demolished thus proving that they were of low quality.But we cannot say for sure that this is true. May be all the pre-1930s hotels are still standing , thus proving that they were indeed better built than those of post-1930s...

Now analysing choice (E):
"The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930."

If this were true we can say that the carpenters of post-1930 era hasn't been equipped with the proper training as were those of the pre-1930s era...Indeed this could have been false...But as in (D) a small assumption in (E) that the shortening of the length of apprenticeship has led to the carpenters of the post-1930s not being as equipped in the craft as those of the pre-1930s negates the possibility that the carpenters of the previous generations worked with more skill and care than those of the later generations. Maybe it was just the extra knowledge acquired during the apprenticeship that had made all the difference.

Please explain where am I going wrong....
You are looking for extreme cases to support the incorrect option and weaken the correct option. This is not what CR, or verbal in general, is about. We need to mark the best answer out of the 5 options given to us. The correct option is probably not going to be "watertight".

As for E, it is completely counter-intuitive to think that spending significantly less time as an apprentice can somehow lead to better training/learning. Sure, maybe a few carpenters who turn out to be geniuses don't need as much time learning from someone else, but are we willing to say that (on average) carpenters have started benefiting from spending significantly less time learning?

Learn from questions like this one, but the fact that you can take different things out of the options you encounter tells us that you are able to look at statements from multiple angles. That ability could hurt your score, however, if you give too much importance to extremely unlikely scenarios. Practice sticking to the most likely interpretation instead.
_________________
Tuck School Moderator
User avatar
P
Joined: 31 Aug 2016
Posts: 283
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2019, 09:26
singh_amit19 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?


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

Analysis: Incomplete Information- The author failed to consider all of the possibilities.


(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
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.out of scope

(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. Opposite: This one kind of supports the author's argument. Rules out one of the possibilities that materials used by the carpenters of two eras were different

(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 one gives another plausible explanation of the reason for the observation by the author

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.Opposite: This one kind of supports the author's argument.
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Mar 2019, 07:38
GMATNinja - Excellent explanation as usual...
Thank you !!

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2019, 07:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.