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.

The question asks you to weaken the argument, so when you read, you're wanting to get a sense of how the author is drawing their conclusion. Here, the author concludes that pre-1930s carpenters who work on hotels worked with more skill/care/effort than post-1930s carpenters. Why? Because the hotels they see that were built before 1930 exhibit more superior "work." This is a conclusion based on a comparison. So one question you should always ask in these moments is, "was the comparison fair?" Another example of this "comparison" would be an argument like the following. At today’s auction of early 20th century art pieces, many of the hand‐blown glass sculptures had small chips or cracks. By contrast, nearly every forged‐steel sculpture on display was flawless. Clearly the metal sculptors in the early 20th century worked with far greater skill, care, and effort than the glassblowers. What do you think, is this a fair comparison? Are 100 year old hand-blown glass items really comparable to forged-steel in their ability to withstand the test of time? Or could it be that in no universe should we be thinking that durability of steel vs glass corresponds to the craftsmanship of the artisan who works in these two mediums? The question around whether we should be comparing the hotels pre and post 1930s based on the materials used actually comes up in answer choice C. However, choice C actually strengthens the conclusion by saying that the materials ARE comparable, so at least in this respect the comparison seems okay. But the guidebook writer's comparison also incorporates an aspect of time, which hints at possible survivorship bias. How does that apply here - well let's tweak my art piece example a bit: At today’s art auction, nearly all of the hand‐blown glass sculptures created before 2000 were flawless, containing very few imperfections in the glass. By contrast, nearly half of the hand-blown glass sculptures created after 2000 had several visible imperfections in the glass. Clearly the glass blowers of the 20th century worked with far greater skill, care, and effort than the glassblowers of the last 25 years. So what do you think? Is this a fair comparison? Or could it be that imperfections in any sculpture might lead to that sculpture eventually breaking or falling apart? If that's true, then imperfections (over time) might lead to pieces getting damaged or destroyed. If I look at bunch of new pieces, maybe enough time hasn't passed for them to start breaking and so they're still on the shelf, imperfections and all. But if I look at a bunch of older pieces, I might not be seeing how many of them had originally had imperfections because enough time has passed for them to start breaking and end up thrown out. So answer choice D is saying that good quality buildings are less likely to degrade over time, and therefore less likely to be torn down. So if you're seeing a bunch of really old buildings that are still standing, then they were of the highest quality. IF there had been low quality buildings, they're probably gone already. That means that we should be very careful drawing conclusions based only on what is left to be seen (on the survivors) as they are a skewed sample of what might have originally been there! Hope this helps! Whit

Last visit was: 29 Apr 2026, 23:39

It is currently 29 Apr 2026, 23:39

Toolkit

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3

gmater2358

Joined: 05 Apr 2022

Last visit: 29 Dec 2022

Posts: 5

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 5

Kudos: 5

27 May 2022, 00:59

Kudos

Bookmarks

Thank you very much Avi for your response!

"The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished" - many comments in this section used this choice to suggest that hotels BEFORE 1930 that are currently in place, are not representative of the general hotel population BEFORE 1930, since the low quality ones have already been demolished.

However, that can easily be applied to hotels after 1930 as well. There's nothing in the choice that talks about time - so hotels with pow quality built AFTER 1930 could be demolished as well.s
So that assertion cannot justify the difference in quality between the hotels.

This is especially true if, suppose, all hotels before 1930 were built in 1929, and the after ones were built in 1931. So we shouldn't expect susbstantial difference in the "demolish" rate. However this last paragraph is not necessary to hold me general argument sound.

To summarize, the problem with the answers here is that most seem to apply this choice to hotels befire 1930, with no clear reasoning.

Posted from my mobile device

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

1,908

[1]

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 1,908

[1]

27 May 2022, 06:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

gmater2358

There's nothing in the choice that talks about time - so hotels with low quality built AFTER 1930 could be demolished as well.

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.

gmater2358

This is especially true if, suppose, all hotels before 1930 were built in 1929, and the after ones were built in 1931. So we shouldn't expect susbstantial difference in the "demolish" rate. However this last paragraph is not necessary to hold the general argument sound.

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.

muralis18

Joined: 08 Dec 2021

Last visit: 01 May 2023

Posts: 21

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 21

Kudos: 0

01 Jun 2022, 04:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

In option E -> length of apprenticeship means that the timeline to finish the work isn't it? If that is low post-1930, then it's not the low skill of workers but rather the timeline that has caused the hotels buildings not so effective and hence it weakens the argument. Is there anything that I'm missing?
Please let me know

Best

AjiteshArun

Major Poster

Joined: 15 Jul 2015

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 6,081

Own Kudos:

5,140

[1]

Given Kudos: 744

Location: India

GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V169 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V169 Verified score

Posts: 6,081

Kudos: 5,140

[1]

01 Jun 2022, 18:59

Kudos

Bookmarks

muralis18

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.

anirudhmadhu

Joined: 11 Jul 2025

Last visit: 28 Jul 2025

Posts: 1

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 1

Kudos: 0

04 Oct 2024, 23:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

_______________________________
Not able to understand why D ?

WhitEngagePrep

Tutor

Joined: 12 Nov 2024

Last visit: 20 Nov 2025

Posts: 58

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 19

Location: United States

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 58

Kudos: 54

16 Jul 2025, 10:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

anirudhmadhu

Not able to understand why D ?

The question asks you to weaken the argument, so when you read, you're wanting to get a sense of how the author is drawing their conclusion. Here, the author concludes that pre-1930s carpenters who work on hotels worked with more skill/care/effort than post-1930s carpenters. Why? Because the hotels they see that were built before 1930 exhibit more superior "work." This is a conclusion based on a comparison. So one question you should always ask in these moments is, "was the comparison fair?"

Another example of this "comparison" would be an argument like the following.

At today’s auction of early 20th century art pieces, many of the hand‐blown glass sculptures had small chips or cracks. By contrast, nearly every forged‐steel sculpture on display was flawless. Clearly the metal sculptors in the early 20th century worked with far greater skill, care, and effort than the glassblowers.

What do you think, is this a fair comparison? Are 100 year old hand-blown glass items really comparable to forged-steel in their ability to withstand the test of time? Or could it be that in no universe should we be thinking that durability of steel vs glass corresponds to the craftsmanship of the artisan who works in these two mediums?

The question around whether we should be comparing the hotels pre and post 1930s based on the materials used actually comes up in answer choice C. However, choice C actually strengthens the conclusion by saying that the materials ARE comparable, so at least in this respect the comparison seems okay.

But the guidebook writer's comparison also incorporates an aspect of time, which hints at possible survivorship bias.

Quote:

Survivorship Bias: the mistake of judging a group or process by the examples that are visible — the “survivors” — while ignoring those that failed and disappeared from view. Because the failures are hidden, any conclusions drawn from the surviving sample alone can be badly skewed.

How does that apply here - well let's tweak my art piece example a bit:

At today’s art auction, nearly all of the hand‐blown glass sculptures created before 2000 were flawless, containing very few imperfections in the glass. By contrast, nearly half of the hand-blown glass sculptures created after 2000 had several visible imperfections in the glass. Clearly the glass blowers of the 20th century worked with far greater skill, care, and effort than the glassblowers of the last 25 years.

So what do you think? Is this a fair comparison? Or could it be that imperfections in any sculpture might lead to that sculpture eventually breaking or falling apart? If that's true, then imperfections (over time) might lead to pieces getting damaged or destroyed. If I look at bunch of new pieces, maybe enough time hasn't passed for them to start breaking and so they're still on the shelf, imperfections and all. But if I look at a bunch of older pieces, I might not be seeing how many of them had originally had imperfections because enough time has passed for them to start breaking and end up thrown out.

So answer choice D is saying that good quality buildings are less likely to degrade over time, and therefore less likely to be torn down. So if you're seeing a bunch of really old buildings that are still standing, then they were of the highest quality. IF there had been low quality buildings, they're probably gone already. That means that we should be very careful drawing conclusions based only on what is left to be seen (on the survivors) as they are a skewed sample of what might have originally been there!

Hope this helps!

Whit

amansoni5

Joined: 16 Nov 2021

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 63

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 209

Products:

Posts: 63

Kudos: 40

13 Apr 2026, 18:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

The key is to focus on the conclusion - the guidebook writer claims that carpenters before 1930 were more skilled than those after 1930, based on the hotels he visited.
To weaken this, we need to question whether his sample is truly representative.
Let’s eliminate the wrong choices:

A Compares carpentry in hotels vs other structures: not relevant to the argument

B Size or accommodation capacity doesn’t determine carpentry skill: irrelevant

C If materials were similar before and after 1930, that actually strengthens the claim (it removes an alternative explanation)

E Length of apprenticeship is not discussed in the argument: irrelevant

So we’re left with D.
Why D weakens the argument:
The writer only visited hotels that still exist from before 1930. But buildings with poor carpentry are less likely to survive over time. So his sample is biased toward the best-built older hotels.
This creates a survivorship bias: he’s comparing a filtered set of high-quality old hotels with a broader, less filtered set of newer ones. That makes older carpenters appear more skilled than they actually were.

It’s like saying “old music is better” because we still listen to classics from the past. We forget that many average or bad songs existed back then too. Only the best survived.
So, the conclusion is flawed because it’s based on a biased sample, making D the correct answer.