Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

Question

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 writerâ€™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.

allabout · Answer

The conclusion that the carpentry work of hotels before the 30' were generally better than those afterwards is weakened if we know of the fact, that just those hotels built before the 30' that had an outstanding carpentry work survived until today. 

I choose D

plsubbu · Answer

Absolute D. D basically conveys the message that the building built before 1930 which had bad carpentry have been demolished and the only good ones are remaining. So no wonder these are better than the buildings built after 1930.

giddi77 · Answer

Good one! Should be D. Agree with plsubbu and allabout. The EVIL Guide bookwriter :twisted:

is forcing us to believe that all buildings built before 1930 have superior carpentry than the ones built after 1930. For COMPARISON based CR questions: 1. Look at the sample that is being compared. Ask yourself, is the SAMPLE representative enough to make a GENERAL statement? 2. Is there any other sample that I can take and prove the argument is wrong? Once we know that there is a problem with the sample, it can be countered in several ways: 1. The evil Guidebook writer might travelled only to a country where his observation is true. Another traveller might have the opposite experience from a different country where all bldgs built after 1930 have better carpentry. :lol:

2. Answer Choice D.

bewakoof · Answer

edit.. i get it now.

ceointhemaking · Answer

I think it should be B. The conclusion is that carpenters worked more carefully with better skill before 1930. The evidence is that the capentry in buildings older than 1930 are in better shape than those in newer buidlings. To weaken that, B says that reasons other than carpenter's skill and effort has effects on the capentry that we see today.

gamjatang · Answer

Yes, the Anwser is (D).

I believe that this type of logic flaw frequently apperas in gmat.

The article says X->Y, but the truth is Y->X.

Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the

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