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

 It is currently 12 Dec 2019, 07:17

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1192
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2017, 13:22
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
Intern
Joined: 06 Nov 2017
Posts: 2
QOTD: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2017, 13:09
souvik101990 wrote:
Quote:
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
Okay, post-1930 hotels can accommodate more guests, but does that impact the quality of the carpentry? Perhaps we could dream up a reason why the higher capacity would negatively affect the original carpentry, but that would require making our own assumptions and introducing ideas not found in the passage. On its own, choice (B) does not help us evaluate the author's argument or conclusion, so it can be eliminated.

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

### Show Tags

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
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3002
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

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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2018, 01:44
AjiteshArun 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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3002
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

28 Dec 2018, 19:31
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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2018, 09:55
GMATNinja 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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Posts: 118
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2019, 03:19

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....
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Valar Dohaeris
Joined: 31 Aug 2016
Posts: 302
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V37
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 38
Location: United States (GA)
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Posted from my mobile device
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1347
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 May 2019, 00:35
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?

(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 generis
What if?
If 1930 is replaced with 2019 in the argument? Will the choice D still be correct choice?
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.”

SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 222
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2019, 00:47
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?

Pre-thinking
The author reasoning is that carpenter working on hotels before 1930 were more qualified, skilled... and after 1930 they were not anymore.
A way in which we could weaken the argument is suggesting another reason for the change in the hotels after 1930. For example the owner wanted to build hotels faster and cheaper so even if carpenters had the same working abilities as before under these new working conditions their work would be of a lesser quality.

(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 choice talks about entities that are out of the scope of the argument. Hence incorrect.

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
This choice does not clearly affect the argument since it does not say how this could impact the quality of carpenters work. Let's say that before 1930 hotels could accommodate only 100 people with 20 rooms and the ones built after 1930 could accommodate120 people with 24 rooms. in this case the quality of the work of carpenters should not be impacted by the higher occupancy. Hence incorrect

(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 strengthen the conclusion since it eliminates an option that could have suggested another possible reason for the decrease in quality. Hence incorrect

(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 option suggests that the quality of the carpentry is a significant factor affecting the quality of the building. This option leaves scope for suggesting that the actual reason for the decrease in quality in hotels built after 1930 is due to the quality of carpentry. Hence correct

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This strengthen the conclusion. Hence incorrect
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav   [#permalink] 13 Aug 2019, 00:47

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by