Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 16:44 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 16:44
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4 
605-655 Level|   Weaken|                                       
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 01 Jun 2022, 18:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
muralis18
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
Show more
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.
User avatar
S1ny1s
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2022
Last visit: 08 Jun 2024
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 40
Location: United States
Posts: 28
Kudos: 6
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 04 May 2023, 20:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?

I thought the following way as I read the argument.

Conclusion: Carpenters who devoted more skill, care, and effort into carpentry (cause) lead to the quality of the original carpentry work being superior. (effect)

both carpenter who devoted more skill and effort + the original carpentry work being superior,both, leads to
the less likely that the building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

or put the above proposition into the other word
The better the quality of carpentry (more skill, effort + Superior quality of carpentry) that leads to the less likely that the building is to fall into disuse and be
demolished.

both two combining factors lead to another effect (new third factor), so option choice(D) weakens the argument.

Dear Expert, are there any fallacies in my logical reasoning skill? if it is I am willing to learn something new from You.
User avatar
vasu_gupta965
User avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2023
Last visit: 07 Oct 2023
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 15 Sep 2023, 06:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
souvik101990
Option D does not impact the two groups of hotels in the same way: this preservational bias will be stronger the older the hotel. Shoddy buildings that are new are more likely to be standing than are those that are old, as the former will be demolished once they get older.

As for B, how does this difference influence the quality of the original carpentry work.

The lesson to be learned from this question: be wary of studies and surveys; ensure that the sample is representative of the population in question.

Imagine that there were a study of men grouped according to their ages, (A) over 90 , (B) close to 65, (C) close to 30. If it were found that, on average, the blood of the A men contained more a certain protein than did the blood of the B men, who in turn contained more of this protein than did the blood of the C men, would it be safe to conclude that the amount of this protein in a man's blood tends to increase as the man ages ?
Show more

Hi souvik101990,

I believe we can conclude that amount of protein increases with age, what should be the correct answer ?
User avatar
lavanya.18
User avatar
Joined: 21 Apr 2024
Last visit: 12 Mar 2025
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
87
Given Kudos: 679
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
Schools: ESSEC MiM "27 HEC MiM "27 IE LBS MiM "26 INSEAD MiM "26
GPA: 7.5
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ESSEC MiM "27 HEC MiM "27 IE LBS MiM "26 INSEAD MiM "26
Posts: 127
Kudos: 87
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 04 Oct 2024, 23:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
D mainly talks about survival of the fittest, the best carpentry work survived these many years, but that doesn't mean carpentry is worse now than earlier. Earlier too there were bad-quality hotels, but they did not survive. This point weakens the author's argument.
User avatar
PeachSnapple1
User avatar
Yale and Darden Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
97
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 139
Kudos: 97
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 13 Jul 2025, 08:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gotta love a beautifully written question when you see it. The author assumes that [because the carpentry in the older hotel is better than that in modern hotel] --> [workers in the past were better than modern workers]. The logic flaw of the author is not hard to see (because there could be many other reasons why the carpentry back in the day were so good), but the logic in the correct choice D is not too obvious at first glance - D does not refuse the fact the the carpentry back in the day were superior, but it just eliminates the author's assumption that excellent workers in the past were the reason. I think D would be easier to spot if it gave a specific cause, i.e. [the materials back in the old days were way better than at present, and studies show that the techniques used in carpentry has not changed much]. But if they write it like that, it would be too easy...
User avatar
WhitEngagePrep
User avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2024
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
48
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 59
Kudos: 48
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 16 Jul 2025, 10:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anirudhmadhu
Not able to understand why D ?
Show more
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.
Show more
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
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts