Critical Reasoning

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel's lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet while the lobby of a nearby hotel was being carpeted with our competitor's most durable carpet. Today, after a decade in which the two hotels have had similar amounts of foot traffic through their lobbies, that other hotel is having to replace the worn-out carpeting near its lobby entrances, whereas the Cormond's Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the advertisement's evidence for concluding that Duratex carpet is more durable than the carpet of its competitor?

(A) The lobby of the Cormond Hotel has five different entrances, but the lobby of the other hotel has only two.
(B) The carpet of the Cormond Hotel's lobby is not the most durable carpet that Duratex manufactures.
(C) The other hotel has a popular restaurant that can be reached from outside without walking through the hotel lobby.
(D) The carpet that is being used to replace carpeting near the other hotel's lobby entrances is not Duratex carpet.
(E) There is a third hotel near the other two that has not replaced the Duratex carpet in its lobby for more than 15 years.

OA: A

can someone explain this in detail!!! thank u so much!

I crossed out B, C and E.
plz especially explain [spoiler]D![/spoiler] tks (:

As per option A, the same traffic is spread across 5 entrances for Cormond Hotel and across 2 entrances for the other hotel.

Clearly in latter's case the traffic per entrance is higher and hence the carpet reaches its end of life quicker even though its quality (in terms of durability) may not be inferior to that of the Duratex carpet.

So, A is correct.

B is irrelevant.

C in also not relevant because the argument clearly provides evidence that the foot traffic is same for both lobbies.

D is again irrelevant. How does it matter whether the new carpet is of the x,y,z .. brand? May be that the hotel has lower budget to purchase carpet and the Duratex carpet is highly priced. Note that being highly priced does not necessarily mean that a carpet better in durability. It is also possible that the third carpet is of much better quality than the other two, but how does even that impact the conclusion?

E is incorrect because first, we do not know the foot traffic in the over 15 years of its usage. May be the traffic is actually less. Second, even if the traffic is high, we do not know how many entrances are there in the third hotel.

I also see the question in another source and OA is C, different from that of the first poster.

A says the two hotel have different entrances, but so what?
Eventually, the amounts of foot traffic are similar.

C says people can go to the restaurant without going through the lobby. In other words, the amount of foot traffic is not counted in the advertisement.

Anyway, still need someone to confirm the OA.

The OA is A.

The number of entrances does matter. Foot traffic in the lobby might be thought to be randomly distributed, yet if there are only two entrances the traffic will be very concentrated and will follow a few patterns - from the entrances to the counter, from the entrances to the elevators, etc.

Now if there are 5 entrances there are many more traffic patterns and the same amount of traffic is distributed much more widely. If you can imagine people walking over a grassy field you can see how fewer paths mean that the paths are worn deeper. In terms of carpet this translates into worn our places.

Now as to choice C, this goes in the wrong direction, yes? The restaurant that you can reach from outside (not through the lobby) is at the OTHER hotel. The hotel that has had the carpet replaced. So that is the one with the worn out carpet. And furthermore this traffic is already taken care of... as The Iceman said in the prior posting, choice C is not really relevant since the argument clearly says that both lobbies have the same amount of traffic -- restaurant or not.

amysky_0205 wrote:Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel's lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet while the lobby of a nearby hotel was being carpeted with our competitor's most durable carpet. Today, after a decade in which the two hotels have had similar amounts of foot traffic through their lobbies, that other hotel is having to replace the worn-out carpeting near its lobby entrances, whereas the Cormond's Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it.

1. 10 yrs ago ------ C hotel's floor covered with D carpet VS Other hotel covered with comp most durable carpet.

2. Today ------- Other hotel have to replace their carpet ( Though foot traffic is same) whereas C Hotel's Carpet can sustain a few more years.

3. Leads us to conclude that --- Probably Carpet of the other hotel was of Inferior Quality.


Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the advertisement's evidence for concluding that Duratex carpet is more durable than the carpet of its competitor?


(A) The lobby of the Cormond Hotel has five different entrances, but the lobby of the other hotel has only two.

Hotel C has many entrance , so there were more entrance points leading to distribution of Traffic equally among the five different entrance points . - Satisfactory.


(B) The carpet of the Cormond Hotel's lobby is not the most durable carpet that Duratex manufactures.

Not relevant .

(C) The other hotel has a popular restaurant that can be reached from outside without walking through the hotel lobby.

Out of scope ...

(D) The carpet that is being used to replace carpeting near the other hotel's lobby entrances is not Duratex carpet.

Might be true , we don't have sufficient information about the Carpet of the other Hotel.

(E) There is a third hotel near the other two that has not replaced the Duratex carpet in its lobby for more than 15 years.

Out of scope.



IMO (A) is the best !!