Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
GDG
Joined: 09 May 2020
Last visit: 10 Mar 2022
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 8
Location: India
Schools: Foster '24 (II)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.98
05 Oct 2020, 21:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Guidebook finds the quality of hotels before 1930s far more superior than those built later. Then he quotes one of the possible conclusion for his explanation that carpenters worked with more effort and care etc. before 1930 than later.
Notice this is one of the possible conclusion not the only conclusion.
We want to weaken the conclusion then we can bring in the statement which decreases our belief in conclusion.
choice A: We are not comparing hotels with Houses etc.
Choice B: Irrelevant - hotel guests not linked with quality of hotel
Choice C: this actually strengthens the conclusion that even if the material available to the carpenters before 1930s and afterwards were the same, then still the quality before those of 1930s is far superior.
Choice D: This undermines the conclusion wherein we need infer further from this statement. If low quality building are demolished that implies the building from before 1930s that are left are only high quality. BUT what if there were in total 10 buildings befoe 1930 and 8 of those were of low quality and demolished and only 2 are still there. This doesn't let us generalize that quality in general was good.
Choice E: This kind of strengthens the conclusion that if carpenters before 1930s were given more apprenticeship then they were thus able to build high quality buildings.
Notice this is one of the possible conclusion not the only conclusion.
We want to weaken the conclusion then we can bring in the statement which decreases our belief in conclusion.
choice A: We are not comparing hotels with Houses etc.
Choice B: Irrelevant - hotel guests not linked with quality of hotel
Choice C: this actually strengthens the conclusion that even if the material available to the carpenters before 1930s and afterwards were the same, then still the quality before those of 1930s is far superior.
Choice D: This undermines the conclusion wherein we need infer further from this statement. If low quality building are demolished that implies the building from before 1930s that are left are only high quality. BUT what if there were in total 10 buildings befoe 1930 and 8 of those were of low quality and demolished and only 2 are still there. This doesn't let us generalize that quality in general was good.
Choice E: This kind of strengthens the conclusion that if carpenters before 1930s were given more apprenticeship then they were thus able to build high quality buildings.
silverprince
28 Dec 2020, 12:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
brocklumbard
It's not clear why you're suggesting that hotels built in 1931 have marginally worse carpentry than hotels built in 1929? The answer choice suggests that the buildings with the poorer quality carpentry are more likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. Hence we're likely to find that a lot of the pre-1930-built hotels have good carpentry (because a lot of the hotels that didn't have been demolished - these were probably very very old buildings). We aren't assuming that the likelihood of being knocked down when you have poor carpentry increases with age. The answer choice suggests that the buildings with poorer quality carpentry are more likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. We're taking the answer choice to be true and we're trying to determine the impact that it would have on the argument. Does it weaken it? Yes it does, because it suggests that we're not comparing like for like and hence the representativeness of the analysis is at question here.
Does this make sense?
Just want to add my views here on this question. Here we're looking for an answer choice that weakens the argument that Carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently. We're looking for an answer choice that gives another plausible explanation for the trend that the quality of the carpentry work in hotels built before 1930 is superior to that in hotels built afterward.
(D) - Correct - This suggests that the older buildings with better quality carpentry are disproportionately represented today. The older hotels that were demolished could have had same if not worse level of quality of carpentry as newer hotels, thus weakening the argument.
11 Jan 2021, 00:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
P: The quality of the original carpentry work in hotels built before 1930 is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.
C: Carpenters working on hotels before 1930 were more skilled than the carpenters who built hotels after 1930.
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.
OK, this is irrelevant.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
Maybe, maybe not. This doesn’t weaken the argument.
(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 would strengthen the argument (potentially). It suggests that we can’t attribute any differences in quality to the material itself so we would have more reason to believe that any such differences are caused by the quality of the workmanship.
(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. There may be some sample bias here – the only buildings that are around are the ones with good quality carpentry. But, we don’t get to see all of the poor quality work by the carpenters prior to 1930 because those buildings have been destroyed.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This strengths the argument…carpteners are just getting worse
P: The quality of the original carpentry work in hotels built before 1930 is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward.
C: Carpenters working on hotels before 1930 were more skilled than the carpenters who built hotels after 1930.
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.
OK, this is irrelevant.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
Maybe, maybe not. This doesn’t weaken the argument.
(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 would strengthen the argument (potentially). It suggests that we can’t attribute any differences in quality to the material itself so we would have more reason to believe that any such differences are caused by the quality of the workmanship.
(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. There may be some sample bias here – the only buildings that are around are the ones with good quality carpentry. But, we don’t get to see all of the poor quality work by the carpenters prior to 1930 because those buildings have been destroyed.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
This strengths the argument…carpteners are just getting worse
