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

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.

(A) - Incorrect - Irrelevant - This answer choice is out of Scope. We're not interested in other structures, only in hotels.

(B) - Incorrect - 180 - This answer choice slightly strengthens the explanation because if the newer hotels accommodate more guests, then it indicates that more care is given to "space efficiency" to increase the number of rooms so that the hotels are more cost effective, suggesting that the quality of carpentry work might be compromised. But this is a bit of a long shot...

(C) - Incorrect - Irrelevant - The quality of the carpenters is at question here. Even if the quality of the materials were to differ (for better or for worse), the quality of the workers could be far superior in the older hotels than in the newer hotels.

(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.

(E) - Incorrect - 180 - This answer choice provides some support to the conclusion in that the carpenters previously worked with more skill, care and effort.

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
_________________

Video solution from Quant Reasoning 28:23
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

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.

Pre-thinking: we need to see, if more skill, care, and effort are not the factors for hotels before 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. -> Why do we care about other structures. Incorrect.

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. -> How accommodation is relevant here. 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. -> Materials are same from way back to now. It doesn't help in weakening the conclusion.

(D) 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, all the better quality building are after 1930. So, there is no point saying more skill, care, and effort are required by carpenters. It makes sense. Let's keep it.

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. -> Incorrect.

So, I think D.

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?

P : hotels built before 1930 has superior quality.
C : carpenters who build those hotels were more skillful.


(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. We are comparing between hotels not other structures.

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
-> Irrelevant. Amount of guests that a hotel can accommodate has nothing to do with durability.

(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 option exacerbates the discrepancy rather than explains

(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. Hotels that still remain is because they had good carpentry quality.

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930
-> Irrelevant. We cannot induce the relationship between length of apprenticeship and skill of workers

Video solution from Quant Reasoning:
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

This is a high-quality question

The option D makes me think of the survivor bias, which usually weaken any argument. whenever you saw something like that do not hesitate to put free money into your pocket.

The question you posted was really similar to this one, but while many people said the the answer of that question is (B), I could not agree with them. But I am not sure whether that is an official question, and if it is not, I would ignore it.

Hi avigutman - thank you so much for the video on this question - i had a chance to review the raw recording on youtube for this question.

In order to explain why D is accurate (in the original question) -- You did mention a simpler argument from 33.00 to 33.10 here

You mention the following simple argument



The above weakener makes sense to me

^^

My question is – does the weakener HAVE TO GIVE an alternative reason as to why the 2 events (waking up and rising sun) are taking place at the same time. ?

What if this was the weakener did not touch on the aspect of why the 2 events (waking up and rising sun) are taking place together. for exmaple -



Here this option DOES NOT EXPLAIN why the two events (waking up and rising sun) are taking place at the same time.

But (2) instead says – the conclusion is wrong

Would (2) be considered a weakener if it showed up as answer choice ?

Technically speaking, I would say that yes, it's a weakener. But I don't think I've ever come across such a weakener on the GMAT, jabhatta2.

Thank you so much avigutman for responding. I have heard this before and i am curious -- how come the GMAT doesnt use this as a potential weakeness ?

Is it because -- it is too easy to 'spot' as a weakness ?

Yeah, jabhatta2, it wouldn't require any critical reasoning.
It's just providing new information letting us know that the conclusion can't possibly be true - but it doesn't engage with the argument in any way.

Why nobody talks about the fact the (D) also affects hotels that were built AFTER 1930? You all seem to ignore this.
If hotels that have inferior carpentry are more likely to be demolished, this is true also for hotels built AFTER 1930...

Correct, gmater2358. With answer choice D, we'd expect to notice that in hotels built before xxxx the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. In other words, there's nothing special about the year 1930. You can substitute xxxx with any year, and expect similar results.
But, why are you saying that we're ignoring something? Does this feature make D any less of a weakener, in your mind? If so, why?

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

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.

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.

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