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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
What do András from Hungary, Pablo from Mexico, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Rishab from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Grab 20% off any Target Test Prep GMAT Focus plan during our Flash Sale. Just enter the coupon code FLASH20 at checkout to save up to $320. The offer ends on Tuesday, April 30.
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
In this conversation with Ankit Mehra, IESE MBA and CEO & Co-Founder, of GyanDhan, we will discuss how prospective MBA students can finance their MBA education with education loans and scholarships.
Ready to conquer GMAT's toughest Data Insights questions? Unlock the secrets of Graphical Interpretation & Two-Part Analysis with our expert-led webinar! Limited seats!
What do András from Hungary, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Saahil from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2007, 06:13
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
50%
(02:05)
correct
50%
(01:32)
wrong
based on 31
sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
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.
Please explain ur answers..!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2007, 07:01
for me is C because it makes a parallel comparison between two facts that would cause the work of carpenters to be different: the quality of materials remain the same
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2007, 07:36
[quote="circkit"]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. - Out of scope B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. - does not make sense, but can be a choice C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - supports the writer D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. strengthens the statement E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. - best choice
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2007, 08:29
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.
---out of scope
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
---out of scope
C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
---strengthens the argument
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
---weakens by stating another reason why old hotels still exist
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
---out of scope
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
27 Jun 2007, 20:07
"D" is the answer.
He is arguing that carpentry was superior before 1930. Choice D weakens this arguement because it demonstrates that houses built before 1930 that are still standing were of the best quality of those built before 1930. Poorly built houses built before 1930 were demolished and hence cannot be viewed by the writer.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
28 Jun 2007, 12:26
A) Irrelevant, we are not comparing carpentry of hotel to other structure.
B) Irrelevant - # of guests has nth to do with quality of carpentry
C) If anything, strengthen. if carpenter uses same material and quality differs, we are better able to correclate difference in quality to skill level of carpenter.
D) if better quality = low chance od demolishment. only high quality hotel will remain for a long time.
E) strengthen, provide reason why quality before and after 1930 differs.
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the
[#permalink]
04 Jun 2016, 09:22
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. It is completely out of scope as we are not comparing with other structures.
B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. This option is also out of scope as accommodation of guests is irrelevant wrt topic in discussion.
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 is actually a strengthener as it states that quality of materials has not deteriorated much
D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. This is a weakener as it explains that if the quality of work was not good in 1930's,then the hotel would have been probably demolished.
E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930. This option is actually a strengthener as it explains work done now by the carpenters is not as good as it was in 1930's
Correct Answer - D
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the [#permalink]