Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 06:54 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 06:54
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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   
605-655 (Medium)|   Weaken|                                       
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,126
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,784
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 01 Sep 2018, 19:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bhavya4793
GMATNinja My reason for rejecting option D was that the buildings built after 1930 should also be diuse and demolished which is not the case as per the passage. The lower quality buildings built after 1930 are still standing. This violates the established premise. Why the carpentry skill only valid for pre-1930 hotels and not after 1930 hotels.
Show more
Let's take another look at D.

Quote:
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Show more
So if the quality of original carpentry is lower in a building, then that building is more likely to fall into disuse. However, this choice does not say that a building with low quality carpentry will immediately fall into disuse upon being built.

Imagine that we build one group of buildings with low quality carpentry and, at the same exact time, another group of buildings with high quality carpentry:

  • After 10 years, perhaps all of the buildings are still standing.
  • After 20 years, perhaps 1 building from the low-quality group has fallen, while all of the buildings from the high-quality group still stand.
  • With each passing decade, it becomes more and more likely that a building from the low-quality group will fall into disuse and be demolished.
  • After a century, maybe a couple buildings from the high-quality group have been demolished, while most buildings in the low-quality group have been demolished.

Coming back to the argument, perhaps some of the low-quality, post-1930 hotels have already been demolished. But it is certainly possible that many of the newer low-quality hotels are still standing.

And when we consider a group of low-quality hotels built before 1930 vs. a group of low-quality hotels built after 1930, odds are that a higher percentage of the pre-1930 group has fallen into disuse over time. This would certainly skew the data observed by the writer.

As I've written earlier, we cannot PROVE that this is the case. But by providing an alternative explanation for the writer's observations, choice (D) certainly weakens the author's argument.

bhavya4793
I choose option E because it says that the average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined and this may be the reason for less skill but the apprentice may be putting and effort in their work but due to less training they might able to make quality material. I know my reasoning is flawed because it only weakens a part of the conclusion and not the whole conclusion and that weakener still depends on an assumption. But compared to option D, this choice seems more plausible.
Show more
Here's choice (E) again:
Quote:
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Show more
Sure, no part of this choice tells us about the carpenters' amount of care and effort. But apprenticeship is where carpenters develop skills, and carpenters' skills are still part of the conclusion. So If the average length of post-1930 apprenticeships are shorter, then we're more inclined to accept the conclusion than reject it. This may not prove the conclusion, but it definitely doesn't weaken the conclusion. Without more information, (E) is more likely to strengthen the argument than weaken it.

This is why (D) creates much more doubt about the conclusion than (E). I hope this helps!
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,465
Kudos: 2,455
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 13 Dec 2018, 15:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

Quote:
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry.

Now the author's argument is in trouble. The author says, "Most of the pre-1930 hotels have better quality. Therefore, pre-1930 carpenters were better." But what if many or even most of the hotels built before 1930 are no longer there? What if they had low-quality carpentry and were already demolished? Perhaps most of the low-quality pre-1930 hotels have been demolished and most of the high-quality pre-1930 hotels are still standing. If (D) is true, then we have no idea what proportion of hotels built before 1930 were high/low-quality. In other words, the writer's data only includes pre-1930 hotels that are still standing and does not take into account pre-1930 hotels that have already been demolished.

Although choice (D) doesn't necessarily disprove the author's conclusion, it certainly weakens the author's reasoning by offering an alternative way to explain the writer's observations. We can no longer conclude that the author's POSSIBLE explanation is the correct one. Now we need more information to reach a logical conclusion. Thus, choice (D) looks good.
Show more
Hi GMATNinja,
Thanks for your nice explanation. I'm happy with your extraordinary explanation, but I'm a bit confused about the highlightedpart that you wrote above.
Q: Is it necessary/mandatory to disprove the author's conclusion to weaken this types of CR questions?
Thanks__
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,074
Own Kudos:
5,138
 [1]
Given Kudos: 743
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,074
Kudos: 5,138
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 13 Dec 2018, 19:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AsadAbu
his is just for curiosity--->
Is there any chance to add another possible correct choice for this CR?
Thanks__
Show more
Sure. We can come up with any number of weaken options for this (or any other) question. But why would we? There can be at most only one correct option in any GMAT CR question :)
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 7,391
Own Kudos:
70,784
Given Kudos: 2,126
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,391
Kudos: 70,784
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 28 Dec 2018, 19:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AsadAbu
GMATNinja

Quote:
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry.

Now the author's argument is in trouble. The author says, "Most of the pre-1930 hotels have better quality. Therefore, pre-1930 carpenters were better." But what if many or even most of the hotels built before 1930 are no longer there? What if they had low-quality carpentry and were already demolished? Perhaps most of the low-quality pre-1930 hotels have been demolished and most of the high-quality pre-1930 hotels are still standing. If (D) is true, then we have no idea what proportion of hotels built before 1930 were high/low-quality. In other words, the writer's data only includes pre-1930 hotels that are still standing and does not take into account pre-1930 hotels that have already been demolished.

Although choice (D) doesn't necessarily disprove the author's conclusion, it certainly weakens the author's reasoning by offering an alternative way to explain the writer's observations. We can no longer conclude that the author's POSSIBLE explanation is the correct one. Now we need more information to reach a logical conclusion. Thus, choice (D) looks good.
Hi GMATNinja,
Thanks for your nice explanation. I'm happy with your extraordinary explanation, but I'm a bit confused about the highlightedpart that you wrote above.
Q: Is it necessary/mandatory to disprove the author's conclusion to weaken this types of CR questions?
Thanks__
Show more
Absolutely not. That is my point -- choice (D) does not disprove the conclusion, but it certainly weakens the argument. And we were asked which choice most seriously weakens the argument, so (D) is a very attractive choice.

I hope this resolves your doubt!
avatar
Debashis Roy
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2017
Last visit: 15 Dec 2019
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
21
Given Kudos: 9
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
Posts: 90
Kudos: 21
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 04 Mar 2019, 03:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Hi..I had a doubt regarding the following explanation provided by GMATNinja for choice (D):

"Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry."
My confusion:

So to accept choice (D) as the weakener, we have to further assume that there were many hotels built in the pre-1930s which have subsequently been demolished thus proving that they were of low quality.But we cannot say for sure that this is true. May be all the pre-1930s hotels are still standing , thus proving that they were indeed better built than those of post-1930s...

Now analysing choice (E):
"The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930."

If this were true we can say that the carpenters of post-1930 era hasn't been equipped with the proper training as were those of the pre-1930s era...Indeed this could have been false...But as in (D) a small assumption in (E) that the shortening of the length of apprenticeship has led to the carpenters of the post-1930s not being as equipped in the craft as those of the pre-1930s negates the possibility that the carpenters of the previous generations worked with more skill and care than those of the later generations. Maybe it was just the extra knowledge acquired during the apprenticeship that had made all the difference.

Please explain where am I going wrong....
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,074
Own Kudos:
5,138
 [1]
Given Kudos: 743
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 6,074
Kudos: 5,138
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 04 Mar 2019, 19:34
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Debashis Roy
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Hi..I had a doubt regarding the following explanation provided by GMATNinja for choice (D):

"Choice (D) implies that buildings with low-quality carpentry are likely to fall into disuse and be demolished. So what about the low-quality hotels built before 1930? Well, if choice (D) is true, it is likely that those old, low-quality hotels have fallen into disuse and been demolished. If that's the case, most of the pre-1930s hotels that have NOT been demolished are likely to have HIGH-quality carpentry."
My confusion:

So to accept choice (D) as the weakener, we have to further assume that there were many hotels built in the pre-1930s which have subsequently been demolished thus proving that they were of low quality.But we cannot say for sure that this is true. May be all the pre-1930s hotels are still standing , thus proving that they were indeed better built than those of post-1930s...

Now analysing choice (E):
"The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930."

If this were true we can say that the carpenters of post-1930 era hasn't been equipped with the proper training as were those of the pre-1930s era...Indeed this could have been false...But as in (D) a small assumption in (E) that the shortening of the length of apprenticeship has led to the carpenters of the post-1930s not being as equipped in the craft as those of the pre-1930s negates the possibility that the carpenters of the previous generations worked with more skill and care than those of the later generations. Maybe it was just the extra knowledge acquired during the apprenticeship that had made all the difference.

Please explain where am I going wrong....
Show more
You are looking for extreme cases to support the incorrect option and weaken the correct option. This is not what CR, or verbal in general, is about. We need to mark the best answer out of the 5 options given to us. The correct option is probably not going to be "watertight".

As for E, it is completely counter-intuitive to think that spending significantly less time as an apprentice can somehow lead to better training/learning. Sure, maybe a few carpenters who turn out to be geniuses don't need as much time learning from someone else, but are we willing to say that (on average) carpenters have started benefiting from spending significantly less time learning?

Learn from questions like this one, but the fact that you can take different things out of the options you encounter tells us that you are able to look at statements from multiple angles. That ability could hurt your score, however, if you give too much importance to extremely unlikely scenarios. Practice sticking to the most likely interpretation instead.
User avatar
PhantomAY
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 21 Jan 2020
Last visit: 01 May 2021
Posts: 50
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 31
Status:Aim for the moon. If you miss, you may hit a star.
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Booth (Chicago) (A$) Kellogg PT '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.63
WE:Project Management (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Booth (Chicago) (A$) Kellogg PT '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Posts: 50
Kudos: 55
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 27 Feb 2020, 10:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thinking: to me D is a very subtle answer. I would assume this rule holds true towards buildings both built before 1930 and after (e.g. 1935), meaning all bad buildings will be demolished and good quality ones stick around. So it doesn't weaken the argument that much.

2nd thought to A: the average lifespan for buildings before 1930 is still longer than that of after, so a bigger portion of buildings got a chance to be obsoleted and demolished, leaving a bigger proportion of quality buildings

And since all other 4 answers are definitely strengthen, even though D is subtle one you should go for it.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,216
Own Kudos:
6,161
 [1]
Given Kudos: 44
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,216
Kudos: 6,161
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 09 Mar 2020, 03:26
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Friends,

Here is the detailed explanation to this question-


singh_amit19
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.


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 157: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here
Show more

Mind-map: Pre-1930 hotels had better carpentry→ pre-1930s carpenters had more skill

Missing link: Between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill.

Expectation from the correct answer choice: To undermine link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill.

Choice A: This answer choice is irrelevant, as it makes a comparison between the quality of carpentry in hotels and other structures such as houses and stores, without referring to the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill at all; therefore, it is an incorrect answer choice.
Choice B: This answer choice fails to address the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 hotel carpenters had more skill, as it remarks on the building style of post-1930 hotels alone, without making any reference to the quality of carpentry employed therein. Furthermore, the fact that hotels post-1930 are built to accommodate more guests has no bearing on the quality of the carpentry employed therein; both these paths of reasoning demonstrate that this answer choice does not fulfil the expectation from the correct answer choice, making it an incorrect answer choice.
Choice C: This answer choice establishes that carpenters working on hotels both before and after 1930 had access to building materials of similar quality; therefore, it becomes clear that differences in the quality of carpentry in hotels before and after 1930 cannot be attributed to a significant difference in the quality of materials used in the respective periods, thereby removing a possible alternative explanation for the observations made by the guidebook writer; it is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.
Choice D: This answer choice states that if buildings employ higher quality carpentry while being built, they are likelier to maintain their utility into the present day; accordingly, pre-1930 hotels with lower quality carpentry are unlikely to survive into the present day, while those with higher quality carpentry are likelier to survive, thereby offering an alternative explanation for the increased presence of higher quality carpentry observed by the guidebook writer in pre-1930s hotels, as compared to a lack of such consistently high-quality carpentry in more recent hotels; one can reasonably conclude that more pre-1930s hotels have highly skilled carpentry work because hotels from the same period with lower quality carpentry probably fell into disuse; this undermines the direct link between high-quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters worked on hotels more skilfully and is, therefore, the correct answer choice.
Choice E: This answer choice states that apprenticeship durations have decreased since the 1930s, implying that carpenters who have taken up the trade since have spent less time on training themselves than did their pre-1930s predecessors, leading to a decline in the general skill level amongst carpenters post-1930s; this argument is in accordance with the argument advanced by the guidebook writer as it strengthens the link between high quality pre-1930 hotel carpentry and the conclusion that pre-1930 carpenters had more skill, and is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Weakening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning,” you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):


All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
RAHUL_GMAT
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2017
Last visit: 31 Jul 2023
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
21
 [1]
Given Kudos: 286
Posts: 37
Kudos: 21
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 12 Jun 2020, 05:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Guys i have found very similar question, for which the answer is not matching with what we have here

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-brochure ... 48969.html

can any body shed some light?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
1,906
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 1,906
 [2]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 21 Mar 2021, 08:35
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Video solution from Quant Reasoning 28:23
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
1,906
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 1,906
 [2]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 06 Sep 2021, 13:23
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Video solution from Quant Reasoning:
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1
avatar
rrrkkk
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2021
Last visit: 02 Mar 2022
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
4
 [2]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 14
Kudos: 4
 [2]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 28 Dec 2021, 00:27
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
GraceSCKao
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
54
Given Kudos: 1,247
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Posts: 117
Kudos: 54
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 02 Jan 2022, 04:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RAHUL_GMAT
Guys i have found very similar question, for which the answer is not matching with what we have here

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-brochure ... 48969.html

can any body shed some light?
Show more

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.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,251
Own Kudos:
328
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,251
Kudos: 328
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav Updated on: 23 Feb 2022, 11:01
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 23 Feb 2022, 10:49.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 23 Feb 2022, 11:01, edited 10 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

Quote:

Everyday I wake up, I see the sun is rising. Therefore, my awakening must be causing the sun to rise.

One way to weaken is give another reason why the two events (waking up and rising sun) are taking place at the same time

(1) I don’t have curtains on my windows in my window
This weakens because if there are no curtains on the window, maybe the sun is causing me to wake up

This gives an alternative explanation as to why the two events (waking up and rising sun) are taking place at the same time.
Show more

The above weakener makes sense to me
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,251
Own Kudos:
328
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,251
Kudos: 328
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 23 Feb 2022, 10:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
^^

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 -

Quote:

(2) As per science, no human being has the ability to cause any celestial body to move
Show more


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 ?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
1,906
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 1,906
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 23 Feb 2022, 11:11
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
^^

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 -

Quote:

(2) As per science, no human being has the ability to cause any celestial body to move


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 ?
Show more

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.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,251
Own Kudos:
328
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,251
Kudos: 328
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 23 Feb 2022, 11:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman

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.
Show more

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 ?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
1,906
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 1,906
 [1]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 23 Feb 2022, 11:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
avigutman

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.
ow come the GMAT doesnt use this as a potential weakeness ?

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

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.
User avatar
gmater2358
User avatar
Joined: 05 Apr 2022
Last visit: 29 Dec 2022
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 5
Kudos: 5
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 26 May 2022, 13:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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...
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
1,906
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 1,906
 [2]
Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and hav 26 May 2022, 19:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmater2358
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...
Show more

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?
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
494 posts
bhanu29
358 posts