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

IMO OA is wrong, bc D only supports the author's argument. If due to the quality of carpentry hotels survive better then old hotels have proven this fact ,indeed.
B is the right one, bc the more visitors carpets can "attend" the greater their overuse, thus cause is not due to the quality.

check this out

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-question-t6280.html#25673

I also think that option B is the right answer on this question