It is currently 12 Dec 2017, 17:50

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 265

Kudos [?]: 560 [0], given: 18

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 00:42
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
singh_amit19 wrote:
I picked E.........assumption over here is quality requires skill, care, and effort, which is relatively lesser in post 1930 carpenters...need to weaken the assumption.....so followed X not causing Y it's Z causing Y...views plz???

This is clearly D.

D explains that it wasn't that all carpenters were better skilled and worked harder, but that the buildings remaining in acceptable shape were built of higher quality.

E: This is a very weak choice. It seems to weaken the conclusion, but perhaps apprenticeships for would-be carpenters does not need to be as long as before.

Do you mean: that the viewer has only see few good buildings from the past as all others were demolished because they were not good. So we cant say about carpenters work from the past.

Am i correct in my understanding?

Kudos [?]: 560 [0], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2009, 12:21
my ans was E, but understood from others explanation what I missed out.

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2009, 21:43
IMO B

as this option only indicates in a way that the carpenters after 1930 are able to build better hotels than carpenters who built hotels before 1930..

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2009, 08:28
Good explanation. Thanks!

MBA2012 wrote:
Nasty one, I would go with D. My reasoning follows:

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. Doesn't get to the point, which is comparing the quality of the work done by carpenters in hotels before 1930 vs. the quality of the work done by the carpenters in hotels after 1930.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. This could imply that carpenters working after 1930 were forced to do more work in the same amount of time, thus worsening the quality, or that more carpentry needed to be done using the same resources. However, we don't have anything to compare the skills of workers before and after 1930. I'll discard it.
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 conclusion rather than weakening it, because it states that using the same materials the carpenters working before 1930 were able to do a better job than those 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. I'LL GO WITH THIS ONE!! If this is true, it means that only the hotels built with the best carpentry are still up and operating; the hotels built with bad carperntry have been demolished, and thus the author hasn't had the opportunity to visit them and see the job made by less skilled carpenters working in hotels before 1930.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. This could imply that carpenters that began to work after 1930 had less time to learn how to get a good job done. However, I think that this one weakens the argument at a minor extent than D.

In this question, we have several possible answers that somewhat weaken the author's conclusion (B, D and E). But still we have to look for the one that weakens the most the conclusion and that provides evidence against it. That's why I chose D.

Really curious to see which one is the OA (and other gmatclubbers' answers as well).

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 162

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 3

Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2009, 13:41
Very Tricky question, what about hotels demolished after 1930 due to poor quality of carpentry? Do we assume that Buildings prior to 1930 are considered for demolition and others are not? I don't like this question
_________________

Rock On

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 554 [3], given: 6

Location: Manchester UK
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 13:23
3
KUDOS
30
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.

Kudos [?]: 554 [3], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 8 [3], given: 1

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 13:47
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.

Kudos [?]: 8 [3], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 554 [0], given: 6

Location: Manchester UK
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2009, 13:53
that was wonderful comparison....

Kudos [?]: 554 [0], given: 6

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 5

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, 03:33
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
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

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 5

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1466

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 31

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 04:39
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
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.

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 31

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 924

Kudos [?]: 1559 [0], given: 40

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, 05:25

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

Kudos [?]: 1559 [0], given: 40

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 5

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, 06:04
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
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.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2010, 19:07
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..

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1466

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 31

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 May 2010, 04:51
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

Kudos [?]: 312 [0], given: 31

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 179

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 May 2010, 04:38
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

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 17

Intern
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 7

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 07:11
1
KUDOS
5
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
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

Kudos [?]: 18 [1], given: 7

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3583

Kudos [?]: 4716 [1], given: 360

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, 13:08
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

Kudos [?]: 4716 [1], given: 360

Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 15991

Kudos [?]: 29364 [0], given: 5299

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, 15:17
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

Kudos [?]: 29364 [0], given: 5299

Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 140

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 3

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2010, 21:07
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

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 3

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2010
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 8

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2010, 06:36
i am still unable to understand how the answer is D....

Please explain in a little detail...

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 8

Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav   [#permalink] 08 Sep 2010, 06:36

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10    Next  [ 190 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by