Beat The GMAT

radhika1306 · Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:30 am

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.

Recommend this topic

Back to top

camitava · Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:15 pm

radhika1306, I am eager to know the source! Really curious... This is an interesting CR.
IMO E. What's the OA?

Back to top

Riggz · Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:42 pm

I think its C

Wouldnt E strengthen the argument??

Back to top

camitava · Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:46 pm

Riggz, Option C is saying -

Back to top

sujaysolanki · Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:58 pm

camitava the source i think is the sets ...as far the OA is concerned hope this helps

http://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critical-reasoning/74221-verbal-set-doubt-2.html

Back to top

camitava · Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:06 am

Thanks sujaysolanki! But still not very much clear to me ... Guys (sujaysolanki u too), I think, we need more explanation ...

Back to top

sujaysolanki · Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:36 am

See if this makes sense ..we can still discuss of it does not Smile

i picked it from one the forums

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 - - we need to explain the differenece in quality before and after 1930s, thus clearly OUT

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930 - it means that they are bigger, but nothing is said about the quality of work - - - OUT.

C. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930 - -This strenghens the conclusion by saying that the materials were the same quality.

D. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished - It means that Hotels with low quality carpentery works may be were already demolished and therefore we see just high quality carpenetry works in Hotels that avoid demolishing - weakens, However if we accept that it could apply to the buildings before and after 1930's proportionally, I would say that this answer choce should be taken just if all other are clearly out of scope.

E. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930 - has nothing to do with quality before and after 1930, moreover it could even strenghen argument if we understand it as the averidge length of carpenter's trainings, at the initial stage of their professional carrier, declined after 1930.

D..is the best among the worse answers, therefore D.

Back to top

camitava · Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:03 am

Hey sujaysolanki, thanks a lot man! Now I understood. But this CR is having something diff... KKKKKKKKKKKKOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!! Ha ha ha... Wink

If these kinds of CR are coming in GMAT, I am going to commit suicide ... Crying or Very sad

Back to top

Auzbee · Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:45 am

This CR was so simple yet had uncommon logic/explanation. I was leaning towards B using the method of elimination. But after reading the explanation in the other thread it makes sense for D. Good question that is likely wrong for everyone.

Back to top

varundaga05 · Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:09 am

Answer is D:

Explanation from OG
=============
Which option most seriously weakens the argument? Th e argument draws an inference from
a comparison between carpentry in hotels of diff erent eras to a judgment about the
carpenters working on hotels in those eras. One way to weaken this inference is by
fi nding some way in which the carpentry in the hotels may be unrepresentative of the
skill, care, and eff ort of the carpenters working in the eras. Th e comparison is between
the carpentry evident in hotels of the two eras that still exist. Th us, if there is some reason
to think that hotels with good carpentry survive longer than those with bad carpentry,
then still-existing hotels from the older era will have disproportionately more good
carpentry, even assuming no diff erence between the skill, care, and eff ort of the
carpenters from the two eras

Can someone explain. It is still not clear why D. By Process of Elimination we can choose D, but i could not get the logic

Back to top

vinay89 · Sun Jun 06, 2010 1:25 pm

This is my take on why it is D.

If the carpentry was not of real good quality, it would not last this long, therefore the hotels that the author has visited are the ones from the 30's that were of real good quality. But his conclusion makes a very general comparison between the skills of carpenters in the 30's to those now. If the comparison were between the best of the 30's and the best of today...then this would strengthen. Since the author brings out a general conclusion out of a specific fact, this weakens the argument.

Back to top

Testluv · Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:55 pm

Guys, you should use the search function (upper right corner)and save yourself some pain and anguish!

This question was discussed recently by Kevin and myself.

http://www.beatthegmat.com/guidebook-writer-t40639.html

Back to top

Beat The GMAT

set 3q 14

Free GMAT Prep Resources

GMAT Prep Discounts

Free Upcoming GMAT Events

Latest GMAT Articles

Latest GMAT Videos

Popular Resources

Course Reviews

Course Locations