Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotels lobby was carpeted

Question

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel’s lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet, and the lobby of the Bromley Hotel was carpeted with our competitor’s most durable carpet. Since then, thousands more people have stayed at the Cormond than at the Bromley, yet the carpet in the Bromley lobby has worn out, while the Cormond’s Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it. Clearly, Duratex is more durable than any of our competitor’s carpets.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument of the advertisement?

A. Duratex is the most durable kind of carpet that its manufacturer makes.

B. In neither the Bromley nor the Cormond is the lobby used heavily by people who are not staying at the hotel.

C. On average, carpeting in hotel lobbies wears out in seven years.

D. At a third hotel, carpet of the same kind as that installed in the lobby of the Bromley ten years ago is being replaced after only five years of use.

E. The Bromley is not only going to have its lobby carpeting replaced, but is also going to have its lobby remodeled.

MartyMurray · Answer

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel’s lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet, and the lobby of the Bromley Hotel was carpeted with our competitor’s most durable carpet. Since then, thousands more people have stayed at the Cormond than at the Bromley, yet the carpet in the Bromley lobby has worn out, while the Cormond’s Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it. Clearly, Duratex is more durable than any of our competitor’s carpets.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument of the advertisement?

The correct answer to this Strengthen will somehow confirm that Duratex is more durable the the competitor's carpets.

Key to getting the question correct is being open to the correct answer working in an unexpected way since anything that confirms the conclusion in any way could be correct.

A. Duratex is the most durable kind of carpet that its manufacturer makes.

B. In neither the Bromley nor the Cormond is the lobby used heavily by people who are not staying at the hotel.

C. On average, carpeting in hotel lobbies wears out in seven years.

D. At a third hotel, carpet of the same kind as that installed in the lobby of the Bromley ten years ago is being replaced after only five years of use.

Although this choice is about a different hotel, the fact that the competitors carpeting has worn out faster in a second case tends to confirm that Duratex is more durable.

Keep.

E. The Bromley is not only going to have its lobby carpeting replaced, but is also going to have its lobby remodeled.

Correct answer:   D

Bunuel · Answer

Similar Weaken question to practice: https://gmatclub.com/forum/advertisemen ... 88826.html

WildSnow · Answer

MartyMurray   DmitryFarberMPrep   KarishmaB   AjiteshArun   GMATNinja 
I found B a little harder to eliminate because it seemed almost as compelling as D. How should I decide which provides the stronger support?

Premise 1:  
Cormond Hotel Lobby = Duratex carpet
Bromley Hotel Lobby = Competitor’s most durable carpet
 Premise 2: 
More people STAYED in Cormond than Bromley
yet Bromley worn-out, Cormond have years left

Conclusion:  Duratex more durable than ANY of our competitor’s carpets

My immediate concern with the argument is that Bromley's carpet may have experienced heavier use from people who were not hotel guests. Answer choice B seems to address that objection. However, answer choice D suggests that the observed result is not just a one-off occurrence but has been seen elsewhere as well, making the evidence more representative. Both seem logically relevant to strengthening the conclusion. How can I determine why one provides stronger support than the other?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  WildSnow  Let me try to help

As per argument stem  Since then, thousands more people have stayed at the Cormond than at the Bromley, yet the carpet in the Bromley lobby has worn out, while the Cormond’s Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it.  We know that there is still some time left to wear out for Duratex Carpet.

And when you say we might bring  B. In neither the Bromley nor the Cormond is the lobby used heavily by people who are not staying at the hotel  to support a conclusion  Duratex is more durable than any of our competitor’s carpets.  Just think how it is increasing our belief in the conclusion? Option B just stated that both the hotels lobby were not used heavily by those who are not staying at the hotel, how is that addressing Duratex better than ANY of the competitors. Even if we negate the option B, the negated version says both the hotels were used heavily by those who are not staying at the hotel, and with above bolded argument part, the conclusion still remains the same, because practically the negated version of strengthener has to somewhat affect the conclusion right.

Similarly if we look at option D, we were given info about other hotel, and its carpet was replaced in 5 years, so comparison "ANY" was addressed, it is kind of increasing our belief that OK, earlier the comparison was between 2 and now there is 3rd hotel, and Duratex is better in comparison to these 2 right.

Hope this helps

KarishmaB · Answer

I get where you are coming from, but option (B) negates a "hypothetical" weakness while option (D) directly strengthens it so (D) is correct.

WildSnow · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB , Could you explain (B) a bit more? 
I'm viewing it as eliminating an objection, so I'm not sure why it's being described as "hypothetical."
A possible alternative explanation is that a large amount of foot traffic from people who were not staying at the hotel caused the Bromley carpet to wear out more quickly. Choice (B) seems to rule out that possibility.

MartyMurray · Answer

It's true. (B) is a slight strengthener. So, really, there's no great way to rule out (B).

So, the way to get this question, or any other imperfect question like it, correct is to choose the strongest choice, which in this case, is (D).

guddo · Answer

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel’s lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet, and the lobby of the Bromley Hotel was carpeted with our competitor’s most durable carpet. Since then, thousands more people have stayed at the Cormond than at the Bromley, yet the carpet in the Bromley lobby has worn out, while the Cormond’s Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it. Clearly, Duratex is more durable than any of our competitor’s carpets.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument of the advertisement?

The argument compares Duratex with the competitor’s most durable carpet and concludes that Duratex is more durable.  The key support  would show that the competitor’s carpet did not fail only because of unusual conditions at the Bromley. We need evidence that the competitor’s carpet itself tends to wear out relatively quickly.

A. Duratex is the most durable kind of carpet that its manufacturer makes.

This does not help much. The issue is not whether Duratex is the manufacturer’s best carpet, but whether it is more durable than the competitor’s carpets.

B. In neither the Bromley nor the Cormond is the lobby used heavily by people who are not staying at the hotel.

This gives some support, but it is limited. It makes hotel guests a more relevant measure of lobby traffic, but it still does not prove that the two lobbies received comparable wear.

C. On average, carpeting in hotel lobbies wears out in seven years.

This gives general background, but it does not specifically compare Duratex with the competitor’s carpet.

D. At a third hotel, carpet of the same kind as that installed in the lobby of the Bromley ten years ago is being replaced after only five years of use.

This is correct. It gives independent evidence that the competitor’s carpet may be relatively poor in durability. That makes it less likely that the Bromley case was unusual and more likely that Duratex is genuinely more durable than the competitor’s carpet.

E. The Bromley is not only going to have its lobby carpeting replaced, but is also going to have its lobby remodeled.

This does not strengthen the argument. The carpet might be replaced because of remodeling rather than because it actually wore out.

Answer: (D)

WildSnow · Answer

AbhishekP220108  Can you please recheck the Official Answer? I was discussing this question with an expert, and he said that (B) is the credited answer. Can you please share the screenshot?

snig264 · Answer

Thanks for the response, but isnt the conclusion that "  Duratex is more durable than any of our competitor’s carpets.",   and D only helps in strengthening that Duratex is better than Bromley one. And B is helping judge that the hypothesis is right?

VCDP · Answer

Main argument is "Duratex is the most durable Carpet" and not that "the other companies carpet is less Durable" then why answer is D and not A?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  WildSnow  well the question says "Most Strengthen", and B is very mild strengthen in comparison to D. and Marty Murray has also provided the detailed explanation. Anyways here is the official explanation from GMAC (QID 101011, Qno 833, Main OG 26-27)

Argument Evaluation

Situation

An advertisement attempts to draw a general conclusion about Duratex carpet’s superior durability based on a single comparative case. The argument compares the wear of two different carpets in two different hotel lobbies over a ten-year period. Duratex carpet was installed at the Cormond; the competitor’s most durable carpet was installed at the Bromley; thousands more people have stayed at Cormond than Bromley; and the carpet at the Bromley wore out, while the Cormond’s Duratex carpet has years left. The advertisement concludes that Duratex carpet is more durable than any of their competitor’s carpets. The argument makes a crucial assumption: that the comparison between the two hotels is fair and representative. Specifically, it assumes that the use and wear conditions (besides the number of guests) are similar enough to attribute the difference in wear solely to the carpets themselves.

Reasoning 
What would support the contention that Duratex carpet is more durable than its competitor? To strengthen the argument, we need evidence that either reinforces the fairness of the comparison by showing that factors other than carpet type did not favor the Duratex carpet; or evidence that generalizes the finding beyond the Bromley, broadening the limited evidence that the competitor’s carpet is inferior.

A. This only compares Duratex to other carpets by the same manufacturer. It has no bearing on the comparison against the competitor’s carpet, which is the focus of the argument.
B. If the lobby is used only by hotel guests, this means the Cormond (with “thousands more guests”) had an even greater disparity in traffic than assumed, which slightly strengthens the conclusion, as the Duratex withstood higher use. However, it doesn’t provide the best support.
C. Knowing the average wear time (seven years) doesn’t help compare the two specific carpets against each other, nor does it address the cause of the wear differences observed in the two hotels.
 D. Correct.  This fact significantly generalizes the finding. By showing that the competitor’s carpet failed quickly in a third, separate location (only five years), it reinforces the conclusion that the competitor’s product is inherently inferior and not just that the Bromley was a uniquely bad installation. It suggests the poor performance of the competitor’s carpet is systemic, not isolated.
E. The Bromley’s decision to remodel its lobby along with replacing the carpet is a business decision that does not affect the physical durability comparison between the two carpets.

The correct answer is D.

Hope this helps.

PS Official Guide questions are rarely debatable.

kshaurya · Answer

In my opinion this shall definitely be marked as  Debatable OA.

There is no clarity in OptionD for assuming it as a strengthener, what if that other hotel used some harsh cleaning methods for the carpets, or there was a fire in that hotel. I think there is a lot to assume. The loophole isn't really covered by option D as well

guddo · Answer

A is not correct because it only compares Duratex with other carpets made by Duratex’s own manufacturer.

But the conclusion is comparative:  Duratex is more durable than the competitor’s carpets . A could be true even if the competitor’s best carpet is still more durable than Duratex.

D is better because the carpet used at Bromley was the competitor’s most durable carpet. If the same kind of carpet also had to be replaced after only five years at another hotel, that makes it less likely that Bromley was just an unusual case. It supports the idea that the competitor’s best carpet is itself not very durable, so Duratex is more durable by comparison. That is the  direct comparison  the argument needs.

sd2025 · Answer

This is an assumption that you're making that Bromley MAY have experienced more footfall. Option D is a stronger answer because it somehow provides a fact and factual information > assumed information when there is confusion.

WildSnow · Answer

To remove a damaging alternative explanation is a textbook strengthener. I disagree that I am ''assuming'' as the argument already suggests that Bromley did not experience greater foot traffic from non-guests. I'm not challenging the OA; I'm trying to understand the subtle difference between B vs D. B appears to rule out a plausible alternative cause of the carpet wear, so I'm struggling to see why D provides stronger support.

sd2025

This is an assumption that you're making that Bromley MAY have experienced more footfall. Option D is a stronger answer because it somehow provides a fact and factual information > assumed information when there is confusion.

egmat · Answer

Hi VCDP,

This comes down to one word in the conclusion, and once you see it, A falls away cleanly.

Read the conclusion exactly:  "Duratex is more durable than  any of our competitor's  carpets." That's a  comparative  claim - Duratex vs. the competition. It is  not  the absolute claim "Duratex is the most durable carpet, period." Your read dropped the "than any of our competitor's" part, and that's the whole reason A looks tempting.

Why A doesn't help.

A says Duratex is the most durable carpet  its own manufacturer makes  - i.e., Duratex beats its sibling products. But the argument never cares how Duratex ranks inside its own lineup. The competitor's carpet could still be tougher than every carpet that manufacturer makes, Duratex included. So A leaves the actual comparison - Duratex vs. competitor - completely untouched.

Why D helps.

The argument's weak spot is that the conclusion rests on one case (Bromley), which might be a fluke. D shows the competitor's same carpet wore out fast at a  third  hotel too - in just  5  years. That's fresh, independent evidence that the competitor's carpet is genuinely weak, which is exactly what a "more durable than the competitor" conclusion needs.

Feel it with one swap:  if the conclusion had instead said  "Duratex is the most durable carpet its maker produces,"  then A would be perfect. The conclusion's wording decides which choice is relevant - and here the wording is about the competitor, not the in-house lineup. That's why it's  D , not  A .

Answer: D

egmat · Answer

Hi WildSnow,

Your instinct is good, and you're right that removing a damaging alternative explanation  can  strengthen an argument. The reason  D  beats  B  isn't that your technique is invalid; it's about what each choice actually does to the evidence.

Start with what the argument really needs.

The conclusion is comparative and broad: Duratex is more durable than  any  competitor carpet. But it rests on a single case - one Cormond lobby vs. one Bromley lobby. The big vulnerability is that this one comparison might be a fluke. So a strong answer either makes that one comparison airtight, or gives fresh evidence that the result isn't a one-off.

What B does - and its limit.

B says neither lobby is used heavily by non-guests. Notice that the "heavy non-guest traffic at Bromley" worry is something  you  supplied; the stimulus never raised it. B closes that one imported gap, but it adds  no new evidence  that the competitor's carpet is actually weak. It just removes one hypothetical objection - and only for the lobby measure we already had. That's why it's a mild strengthener at best.

What D does.

D brings in an entirely separate hotel where the competitor's same carpet wore out in just  5  years. That's brand-new, independent evidence pointing in the conclusion's direction. It directly attacks the "Bromley was just unlucky" worry - not by assumption, but by showing the competitor's carpet fails elsewhere too. The finding generalizes, which is exactly what a broad conclusion ("any competitor's carpet") needs.

So the test isn't "does it remove an objection?" - both can. The test is  how much support does it add?  Removing one hypothetical (B) adds a little; supplying independent confirming evidence (D) adds a lot.

Turn one knob to feel it:  suppose B instead said  "the Bromley lobby had far more non-guest foot traffic than the Cormond."  Now it would  weaken  the argument. B's whole effect lives in a confounder you imagined - flip the confounder and B flips with it. D has no such dependency: a second carpet failing fast is positive evidence no matter what you assume about foot traffic.

Answer: D

egmat · Answer

Hi WildSnow,

Let me rebuild this from what the argument gives us as fact, because once you separate the  facts in the stem  from the  new facts an answer choice introduces , B vs D becomes clear.

What the stem actually establishes (the facts)

- Cormond got Duratex. Bromley got the competitor's  most durable  carpet. Both installed ten years ago.
- Since then,  thousands more  people have stayed at the Cormond than at the Bromley.
- Yet the Bromley's carpet has  worn out , while the Cormond's Duratex  still has years of wear left .

Notice what that already gives us: Duratex took the  heavier  load and still outlasted the rival. So on this one head-to-head, the durability claim is already well-supported - and the traffic dimension actually  favors  Duratex, not the competitor.

(One thing to keep straight: the stem never says the Bromley carpet lasted "five years." It only says it wore out somewhere in that ten-year span. We'll come back to where "five years" actually comes from - it matters.)

What B adds

B says neither lobby gets heavy non-guest foot traffic. That only firms up the  traffic  comparison - and the traffic comparison already favored Duratex (the Cormond had  more  guests and still won). Ruling out outside traffic actually means the Cormond's guest-traffic edge was even larger, so B does  slightly  strengthen. But it's reinforcing the part of the argument that was already strong. Low marginal value.

The real gap - and where D (and "five years") comes in

The conclusion is sweeping: Duratex beats  any  competitor carpet. But it's generalized from a  single  case - the Bromley. The open doubt is:  was the Bromley a one-off?  A bad batch, odd conditions, a fluke.

That's exactly the gap D fills, and it does it with  new information the argument didn't have : at a  third, unrelated hotel , the  same  competitor carpet is being replaced after only  five years . So "five years" isn't a premise - it's the fresh fact choice D introduces, and it describes that third hotel, not the Bromley. A second, independent failure tells us the competitor's carpet is  systemically  weak rather than unlucky at one location. That's why D most strengthens.

Framework to carry forward

1. Separate the  facts in the stem  from the  new facts an answer choice introduces .
2. Find where the argument is still  genuinely exposed  - here, one case, which could be an anomaly.
3. Pick the choice whose new information fills  that  gap.

B reinforces the already-strong traffic point. D closes the anomaly gap with a fresh, independent data point.  Answer: D.

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotels lobby was carpeted

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotels lobby was carpeted

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards