Critical Reasoning

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.

OA: D

can someone explain option E?
thank u so much!

Conclusion: Carpenters before 1930 are better than carpenters after 1930.
Evidence: furniture of the hotels that are built before 1930 have superior carpentry work than hotels that are built afterwards.

The author is assuming that all carpenters before 1930 have superior carpentry skills (he is generalising the observation by considering "all"). If we can show that there were carpentry work that were of lower quality, then we will be weakening the argument. So, D is the best answer.

Now considering E, how is length of apprenticeship is related to skill of the carpenter. This option is assuming that length of apprenticeship is proportional to skill.