OG question

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:00 pm

OG question

by nitinmenon89 » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:03 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:44 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

nitinmenon89 wrote: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

The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling ≠ whole.

Answer choice D: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) ≠ the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

The correct answer is D.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by nikhilgmat31 » Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:43 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Answer is D


However if statement C is little reversed, it can give tight competition to D.
If C says
The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were significantly better in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

Then Answer would be C

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:20 am

by kalika991 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:12 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
nitinmenon89 wrote: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

The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling ≠ whole.

Answer choice D: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) ≠ the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

The correct answer is D.

I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??

Legendary Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by nikhilgmat31 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:48 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
nitinmenon89 wrote: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

The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling ≠ whole.

Answer choice D: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) ≠ the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

The correct answer is D.

Hi Mitch,

I agree with answer as D, But Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:14 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

kalika991 wrote: I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??
The author bases his conclusion on hotels that he has VISITED.
Answer choice D indicates that poorly constructed buildings are typically TORN DOWN.
Implication:
Most of the pre-1930 hotels that were poorly constructed have been torn down, WEAKENING the author's conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:18 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

nikhilgmat31 wrote:Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.
If anything, a longer apprenticeship for pre-1930 carpenters STRENGTHENS the conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Since the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 8:25 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by nikhilgmat31 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:20 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
nikhilgmat31 wrote:Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.
If anything, a longer apprenticeship for pre-1930 carpenters STRENGTHENS the conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Since the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate E.
OK , my mistake. I got confused .

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:48 am

by anant03 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:52 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
kalika991 wrote: I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??
The author bases his conclusion on hotels that he has VISITED.
Answer choice D indicates that poorly constructed buildings are typically TORN DOWN.
Implication:
Most of the pre-1930 hotels that were poorly constructed have been torn down, WEAKENING the author's conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
Hi Mitch ,

Everything is clear , but option D doesn't indicate after 1930. We have to find something, which indicates about after 1930.

Please advise and correct me if am wrong.

Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:45 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?

Could you please help ?

P.S: Other Verbal Experts - KINDLY feel free to shed light as well on this aspect/on my above interpretation!

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:41 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

RBBmba@2014 wrote: D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work.
But what about pre-1930 hotels that do NOT still exist?
According to the OA, any pre-1930 hotels NOT still in existence were probably NOT well-built, WEAKENING the conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

The OA points out the flaw in the writer's reasoning:
The writer cites information about a SAMPLING (pre-1930 hotels still in existence) to render a conclusion about the WHOLE (all pre-1930 hotels) -- a clear change in scope.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:01 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?
An important take-away:
You are attempting to use the information in the OA to strengthen a PREMISE (that the pre-1930 hotels that the writer visited are well-built).
A premise is a FACT.
It CANNOT be strengthened.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:45 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?
An important take-away:
You are attempting to use the information in the OA to strengthen a PREMISE (that the pre-1930 hotels that the writer visited are well-built).
A premise is a FACT.
It CANNOT be strengthened.
Hi GMATGuruNY - I understand you explanations above...

However,NOT able to get it completely why it'd be INCORRECT to say that if better quality of building carpentry means lower probability of building demolition then it's clear(AT LEAST, MOST LIKELY) that carpenters of pre-1930 hotels were more skilled than the carpenters of post-1930 hotels (and that's why pre-1930 hotels STILL EXIST). Otherwise, how it'd be possible for pre-1930 hotels to be STILL in EXISTENCE!

Could you please help ?

Also, a quick BUT IMPORTANT clarification required on your above post -- So,when we say that a particular option STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the ARGUMENT, we ESSENTIALLY means that the Option actually STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:34 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

RBBmba@2014 wrote: However,NOT able to get it completely why it'd be INCORRECT to say that if better quality of building carpentry means lower probability of building demolition
Why are the pre-1930 hotels that the guidebook writer visited still standing?
Because of their superior construction.
This is how you are attempting to interpret D.
But the conclusion is not about the hotels that the writer VISITED.
The conclusion is about ALL carpenters who worked on pre-1930 hotels.
It is possible that THOUSANDS of pre-1930 hotels have been torn down because of poor carpentry.
To strengthen the conclusion that pre-1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill than post-1930 hotel carpenters, D would have to show that very few pre-1930 hotels have been demolished because of poor carpentry.
Also, a quick BUT IMPORTANT clarification required on your above post -- So,when we say that a particular option STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the ARGUMENT, we ESSENTIALLY means that the Option actually STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?
Correct.
Any answer choice that attempts to strengthen or weaken a premise is WRONG.
A premise is a FACT: it cannot be strengthened or weakened.
The correct answer choice must strengthen or weaken the CONCLUSION.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:5 members

by RBBmba@2014 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:30 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote: Why are the pre-1930 hotels that the guidebook writer visited still standing?
Because of their superior construction.
This is how you are attempting to interpret D.
But the conclusion is not about the hotels that the writer VISITED.
The conclusion is about ALL carpenters who worked on pre-1930 hotels.
OK. So, in the conclusion as it's NOT EXPLCITLY mentioned that writer is ONLY talking about hotels that he/she visited, we'd have to CONSIDER ALL pre-1930 hotels IN GENERAL. Right ?

And,GENERALLY, ( in any CR questions) if there is NO EXPLICIT information of any SPECIFICS like above, then we should ALWAYS consider that particular stuff as a whole IN GENERAL. Correct me please if wrong!