k: In the past ten years, most of the new clothes that I have

Question

Корkе: In the past ten years, most of the new clothes that I have purchased have fallen apart within a few short years. However, all of the clothes that I have purchased at vintage clothing shops are still in excellent condition, despite the fact that they were all over thirty years old at the time that I bought them. Clearly, clothes are not manufactured as well today as they were when those vintage clothes were made.

Which of the following is a weakness in the argument above?

(A) It fails to demonstrate that the clothes manufactured thirty years ago were of higher quality than clothes of all other eras.

(B) It neglects the possibility that the clothes of thirty years ago, when prices are adjusted for inflation, cost more than clothes manufactured today.

(C) It confuses the number of clothing items sold with the proportion of those items that are no longer useful.

(D) It does not explain why clothing manufacturing standards have fallen over time.

(E) It fails to take into account clothes made over thirty years ago that are no longer fit for sale.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

ankushsambare · Answer

Conclusion: 
Clothes are not manufactured as well today as they were 30+ years ago.
 Premises: 
 
 Most new clothes the speaker bought in the last 10 years fell apart quickly. 
 All vintage clothes the speaker bought are still in excellent condition.  
 Pre-thinking: 
The speaker is comparing today's clothes with only those old clothes that survived long enough to end up in vintage stores.
What about the many old clothes that wore out years ago and were thrown away? Those are not being considered.
This is a  survivorship bias  flaw.
 Eliminate choices: 
 
  (A)  Talks about all eras, but the argument only compares today vs. 30 years ago.  
  (B)  Price difference is irrelevant to the flaw.  
  (C)  No confusion between number sold and proportion useful.  
  (D)  Doesn't need to explain why standards fell.  
  (E)  Ignores old clothes that did not survive long enough to be sold in vintage shops. This is exactly the flaw. ✅  
 Answer: (E) .

GmatTest2026 · Answer

Fact 1: All the clothes that were purchased 30 years ago at vintage clothing stores are in excellent condition.

Fact 2: Clothes that were purchased more than 10 years ago have fallen apart.

Conclusion: Clothes are not manufactured as well today as they were 30 years ago at vintage clothing stores. 
 
(A) It fails to demonstrate that the clothes manufactured thirty years ago were of higher quality than clothes of all other eras. Incorrect, as the passage doesn't write about the quality. 
 
(B) It neglects the possibility that the clothes of thirty years ago, when prices are adjusted for inflation, cost more than clothes manufactured today. Incorrect. It has nothing to do with the cost.

(C) It confuses the number of clothing items sold with the proportion of those items that are no longer useful. Incorrect Not relevant
 
 (D) It does not explain why clothing manufacturing standards have fallen over time. An incorrect explanation about the standards of clothes will have no impact on the conclusion. 
 
(E) It fails to take into account clothes made over thirty years ago that are no longer fit for sale. Correct. These choices seem to be correct as it completely attacks the assumption that 30 years ago the clothes were still fit to wear.

Option E

arushi118 · Answer

COrrect answer is E  -

A. The argument doesn't need to prove that clothes from 30 years ago were better than all other eras.
B. Higher prices may explain higher quality, but the argument's main flaw is the biased sample of old clothes.
C. No confusion between number sold and proportion remaining useful occurs.
D. An argument can conclude standards fell without explaining the cause.
E. Correct: it ignores clothes made over 30 years ago that wore out and therefore never made it into vintage stores.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The stem alerts us to the fact that there's a flaw afoot, so we should expect something in Kopke's speech to get all fouled up. In more official GMAT lingo, that simply means that the evidence won't adequately support the conclusion. And what is that conclusion? Kopke's maintains that clothes manufactured 30 years ago were constructed better than clothes manufactured today. His evidence is that clothes he's purchased within the last ten years have fallen apart, while the clothes he bought in vintage shops are all in excellent shape despite their age. This might sound persuasive so far, but we know from the stem that this is a flawed argument. Think about where Kopke's logic goes astray. For one thing, he compares all the clothes he's bought within the last ten years to only the clothes that have survived 30 years before he purchased them. That's a subtle shift, but a shift nonetheless. The correct answer should point out the dubious nature of this comparison, and indeed, choice (E) points out the inappropriateness of this kind of comparison. The only "vintage" clothes he takes into account are those that have proven to be extremely durable. So it isn't much of a surprise that they're still functional. Корке doesn't consider the clothes made long ago that have fallen apart, so he can't evaluate the overall standards of that era. Comparing only the extremely durable vintage clothes to all modern clothes is like comparing apples and oranges, so choice (E) gets to the heart of the flaw here. It suggests an alternative explanation for the "favorable" comparison that Корке relies on in forming his conclusion.

(A) The argument doesn't address all eras, so Корке doesn't have to compare the clothes made 30 years ago with those of every other era.

An 800 test taker doesn't fault an author for failing to do something he's not logically obligated to do.

(B) Kopke's argument does not address cost at all—just quality. Considering cost would not affect the validity of the argument.

(C) Корке doesn't take into account vintage clothes that are no longer fit for sale (see the explanation for choice (E) above), but he never equates the proportion of tattered clothes with the total number of clothing items sold. So choice (C) doesn't describe a weakness in the argument.

(D) The argument doesn't hinge on explaining why standards have fallen, just that they have. An 800 test taker notes the scope of the argument from the get-go, and immediately discounts choices that violate it.

k: In the past ten years, most of the new clothes that I have

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

k: In the past ten years, most of the new clothes that I have

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