Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Critical Reasoning--Set-23-Q-2

Expert replies
by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:20 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.

What can be the answer?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by fitzgerald23 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:34 am
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.
Join the discussion

by kapur.arnav » Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:24 pm
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...
Join the discussion

by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:00 pm
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
Join the discussion

by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:03 pm
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.
Join the discussion

by arora007 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:32 am
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!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Join the discussion