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.

What can be the answer?

Here are the things you need to know:

1. The author feels that hotels built before 1930 show superior carpentry work than those built after
2. He concludes that this is because the pre 1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill and care than post 1930 carpenters

A. Incorrect. Has nothing to do with the arguments here since we are comparing hotels and hotels and it has nothing to do with homes or stores

B. Incorrect. Size of the structure has nothing to do with the argument.

C. Incorrect. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If the materials they built with are the same than clearly the pre 1930s folks showed better effort in working with the same items/

D. Correct. What this tells us is that hotels exhibiting poor carpentry are going to be demolished as time goes on. Because of that it is logical to assume that the only pre 1930 hotels remaining are of excellent construction to remain in use all these years later while the post 1930 hotels are not old enough to have yet fallen into disuse and subsequently being torn down. Due to this the appearance is given that the old hotels are constructed better than new ones.

E. Incorrect. This also would strengthen the conclusion. This is telling us that newer carpenters dont receive as much training which would likely be reflected in poorer work.

prachich1987 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.

What can be the answer?

would go with E...

kapur.arnav wrote:

prachich1987 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.

What can be the answer?

would go with E...

"D" is the right answer.
It cannot be "E".See the explanation given by fitzgerald23
But why it should be "D".I am not very convinced

fitzgerald23 wrote:Here are the things you need to know:

1. The author feels that hotels built before 1930 show superior carpentry work than those built after
2. He concludes that this is because the pre 1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill and care than post 1930 carpenters

A. Incorrect. Has nothing to do with the arguments here since we are comparing hotels and hotels and it has nothing to do with homes or stores

B. Incorrect. Size of the structure has nothing to do with the argument.

C. Incorrect. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If the materials they built with are the same than clearly the pre 1930s folks showed better effort in working with the same items/

D. Correct. What this tells us is that hotels exhibiting poor carpentry are going to be demolished as time goes on. Because of that it is logical to assume that the only pre 1930 hotels remaining are of excellent construction to remain in use all these years later while the post 1930 hotels are not old enough to have yet fallen into disuse and subsequently being torn down. Due to this the appearance is given that the old hotels are constructed better than new ones.

E. Incorrect. This also would strengthen the conclusion. This is telling us that newer carpenters dont receive as much training which would likely be reflected in poorer work.

Further to your explanation above,
Is the write talking only about the strength & durability of the construction.
I think he is talking in an art point of view.

I do not think the writer is writing from the art point of view, we cannot assume the same. We want a clear reason why hotels built after 1930 did not have the same quality of carpentry? If its not skill,effort and care what is it?

to weaken, we need to bring in new evidence which shall be able to explain the issue.
A. deviates..we are only talking about hotels.
B. more guests can be accomodated...so..? we would have to assume that more guests=> degradation of quality?
C. This does not weaken.
D. This probably gives a new dimention as to why older buildings had better quality of orignal carpentry, there wouldn't be one if it had poor quality of carpentry & materials.
E. This does not weaken but supports that worker skill level has reduced.
D should be the answer.

hope this helps!