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

Dear Friends,

Here is the detailed explanation to this question-




Mind-map: Pre-1930 hotels had better carpentry→ pre-1930s carpenters had more skill

Missing link: Between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill.

Expectation from the correct answer choice: To undermine link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill.

Choice A: This answer choice is irrelevant, as it makes a comparison between the quality of carpentry in hotels and other structures such as houses and stores, without referring to the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill at all; therefore, it is an incorrect answer choice.
Choice B: This answer choice fails to address the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 hotel carpenters had more skill, as it remarks on the building style of post-1930 hotels alone, without making any reference to the quality of carpentry employed therein. Furthermore, the fact that hotels post-1930 are built to accommodate more guests has no bearing on the quality of the carpentry employed therein; both these paths of reasoning demonstrate that this answer choice does not fulfil the expectation from the correct answer choice, making it an incorrect answer choice.
Choice C: This answer choice establishes that carpenters working on hotels both before and after 1930 had access to building materials of similar quality; therefore, it becomes clear that differences in the quality of carpentry in hotels before and after 1930 cannot be attributed to a significant difference in the quality of materials used in the respective periods, thereby removing a possible alternative explanation for the observations made by the guidebook writer; it is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.
Choice D: This answer choice states that if buildings employ higher quality carpentry while being built, they are likelier to maintain their utility into the present day; accordingly, pre-1930 hotels with lower quality carpentry are unlikely to survive into the present day, while those with higher quality carpentry are likelier to survive, thereby offering an alternative explanation for the increased presence of higher quality carpentry observed by the guidebook writer in pre-1930s hotels, as compared to a lack of such consistently high-quality carpentry in more recent hotels; one can reasonably conclude that more pre-1930s hotels have highly skilled carpentry work because hotels from the same period with lower quality carpentry probably fell into disuse; this undermines the direct link between high-quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters worked on hotels more skilfully and is, therefore, the correct answer choice.
Choice E: This answer choice states that apprenticeship durations have decreased since the 1930s, implying that carpenters who have taken up the trade since have spent less time on training themselves than did their pre-1930s predecessors, leading to a decline in the general skill level amongst carpenters post-1930s; this argument is in accordance with the argument advanced by the guidebook writer as it strengthens the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill, and is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Weakening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning,” you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Guys i have found very similar question, for which the answer is not matching with what we have here

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-brochure ... 48969.html

can any body shed some light?

The option D makes me think of the survivor bias, which usually weaken any argument. whenever you saw something like that do not hesitate to put free money into your pocket.

Technically speaking, I would say that yes, it's a weakener. But I don't think I've ever come across such a weakener on the GMAT, jabhatta2.

Yeah, jabhatta2, it wouldn't require any critical reasoning.
It's just providing new information letting us know that the conclusion can't possibly be true - but it doesn't engage with the argument in any way.

Correct, gmater2358. With answer choice D, we'd expect to notice that in hotels built before xxxx the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. In other words, there's nothing special about the year 1930. You can substitute xxxx with any year, and expect similar results.
But, why are you saying that we're ignoring something? Does this feature make D any less of a weakener, in your mind? If so, why?

Well, gmater2358, the answer choice says "the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished." There's definitely a time element embedded. It's like this:
"the less likely that building is to fall into disuse over time and be demolished."
I think your doubt is similar to the one that I respond to here.

Yes, that scenario would greatly diminish the strength of answer D as a weakener. But the GMAT expects us to use real world sensibilities, so it's probably not advantageous to hypothesize such an extreme scenario.

Hi muralis18,

Not quite. "The average length of apprenticeship" refers to the time a carpenter spends learning from another carpenter who has more skill/experience (it's like a ~training period). If the average length of apprenticeship has declined significantly since 1930, it's reasonable to expect that, for example, the carpenters of today are less skilled than the carpenters of earlier eras.

Option E therefore ends up strengthening the guidebook writer's argument.

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

(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. out of scope, since the argument addresses the skill of the carpenter and not the materials used

(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.There could have been many less skilled carpenters who made buildings that were so poorly made that they fell into disuse and were demolished.

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. could strengthen the argument

The guidebook writer states that carpentry work was superior in the old hotels than in the new ones. If the carpentry work was really superior it is implied that all those hotels should have endured the test of time. "D" implies that some of the buildings have already fallen into disuse and have been demolished which suggests that the carpentry work wasn't that superior.

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. -We are comparing the hotels with hotels in the passage.

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. -More guests? 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. -This strengthens the argument because if the materials available to the carpenters of both the eras are same then the authors conclusion is correct.

(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. -Correct. Good quality things stay stable for longer time. Thus, the author visited only good quality hotels. Hence we can't conclude that "all" previous era carpenters are better.

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. -Out of scope

I stuck in this question between B and D and I don't understand why D is better. In D we also need to "dream up" something, which is not in the passage itself, namely we need to assume the year at which Guidebook writer made his visits. Answer D is correct if visits are made nowadays, but what about if the visites made in 1940? Then D logic flaws, because not too many hotels built before 30es had been demolished at that time, while greater accomodation in choice B could mean greater expluatation rate which impact the quality of carpentry. Passage doesn't tell us the time when guidebok writer made his conslusions and visits, so for me B looks stronger as the higher expluatation rate would cause damage to carpentry quickly, therefore argument in B can be applied in most of the cases disregarding time when visits were made.

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

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__

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__

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 guidebook writer will take E as evidence for HIS point!! So, E is definitely wrong way.
Thanks__