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

 It is currently 27 May 2018, 16:43

### 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
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 173
Location: Manchester UK
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 14:23
6
KUDOS
27
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 31
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 14:47
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

"The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished."....It means that most hotels built before 1930 have been put into disuse or demolished...only a few remain with has been compared with modern hotels(which may or may not have better carpentry).

It is like comparing two scores say 3/3 with 8/10....clearly first ratio is greater,but success rate is more in second as first one ignores failed cases.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 173
Location: Manchester UK
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 14:53
that was wonderful comparison....
Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 39
Location: Leeds
Schools: SBS, JBS(ding w/o interview), HEC
WE 1: SCI-12 yrs
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 04:33
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.
OA: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks
VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1427
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 05:39
ajitsah 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.
OA: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks

The argument is saying that carpenters before 1930 are more talented than carpenters after 1930 based on his visits to older hotels. However, in D, it is saying that hotels with bad quality carpentry typically get demolished. In other words, if there was a hotel with bad carpentry prior to 1930, the hotel is probably demolished. The argument is making a conclusion based on observation. The writer is only visiting hotels with good carpentry because the ones with bad carpentry have been demolished.
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 844
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 06:25

cr-set-23-q2-53053.html
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 39
Location: Leeds
Schools: SBS, JBS(ding w/o interview), HEC
WE 1: SCI-12 yrs
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 07:04
lagomez wrote:
ajitsah 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.
OA: D

I came across this question in OG and at many other places. How does the answer(see spoiler) weaken the argument? Please elaborate. I don't see any of those as weakening the argument.
Thanks

The argument is saying that carpenters before 1930 are more talented than carpenters after 1930 based on his visits to older hotels. However, in D, it is saying that hotels with bad quality carpentry typically get demolished. In other words, if there was a hotel with bad carpentry prior to 1930, the hotel is probably demolished. The argument is making a conclusion based on observation. The writer is only visiting hotels with good carpentry because the ones with bad carpentry have been demolished.

Thank you very much, this is better than any other explanation given elsewhere, better than even the ones posted in the above link. Great.
Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 20
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 20:07
D says "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished".

The same would be applicable to buildings after 1930.
Nowhere does he state that this applies only to building before 1930..

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1427
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 05:51
FedX wrote:
D says "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished".

The same would be applicable to buildings after 1930.
Nowhere does he state that this applies only to building before 1930..

This can be true, but the question asks for an answer that weakens and only D weakens from the choices available
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 158
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 05:38
i would like to exxplain in slightly diffrent manner
prior to 1930 the buildings included both good and bad carpentry, but the bad carpentry fell into disuse and demolished and good one remained there,
now in mordern days there are good and bad carpentry and the guidebook writer is comparing good and bad carpentry of mordern times to the good carpentry before 1930
hencethe this comparision is awkward hende D is the ans
Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 5
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 08:11
2
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

can someone pls explain y E is not correct...
since avg apprenticeship decreases-> carpenter less skilled before becoming full fledged carpenter ->after 1930 carpenters less skillful
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3486
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 14:08
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
E strengthens the argument, but we need to find statement that weakens it the most....
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 16897
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 16:17
See here - discussed a number of times: search-results.xhtml?cx=009332468639467955845%3Ah-z9cduzcoi&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Guidebook+writer%3A+I+have+visited+hotels+throughout+the+country&sa=Search#723
_________________

Founder of GMAT Club

Just starting out with GMAT? Start here... or use our Daily Study Plan

Co-author of the GMAT Club tests

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 103
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 22:07
E strengthens the argument..coz declined avg length of apprenticeship is the reason why carpenters working in hotels after 1930 work with less skill, care..

D weakens
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 33
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2010, 07:36
i am still unable to understand how the answer is D....

Please explain in a little detail...
Manager
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 224
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2010, 08:11
2
KUDOS
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. 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.

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.Irreverent as the author compares just hotels
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. We do not care about accommodation but about skill
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.Irrelevant- How can materials have anything to do. If at all it supports the authors conclusion that even though the same tools were used older buildings were better made
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. The very reason that the author could visit these hotels is because the quality of carpentry was good and it withstood the test of time
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.Irrelevant

I dont know the answer, Kindly explain along with the right answer
Manager
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 224
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2010, 08:12
cr-set-23-q2-53053.html

Manager
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 224
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2010, 08:13
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 192
Location: Boston
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 06:59
29
KUDOS
11
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2010, 07:25
1
KUDOS
vaivish, malik, nishant - try using POE and you will narrow down to 1~2 choices.

Irrelevant 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. Some ppl might try to relate it - more guests - > more damage. If less damage means better work /quality (but this is stretching it too far in GMAT) B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

Strengthens coz is material is same, then workmanship has to be better. 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.

Irrelevant E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

Now go back to D. Building still there - > original carpentry is good quality - > it is not the workmanship, but the quality of material. Hence, weakens the claim of high quality of workmanship by the author.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav   [#permalink] 14 Sep 2010, 07:25

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®.