BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Source #OG12

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:27 am
Thanked: 1 times

Source #OG12

by abhishek.pati » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:59 pm
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 signifi cantly 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 signifi cantly since 1930
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:24 am
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:32 am
IMO D Well i admit that i solved it by elimination method because the correct answer did not click to me but later i got how

(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. - WRONG COMPARISON
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. - IRRELEVANT
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in
quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - STRENGHTENS
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.- ALL BAD QUALITY BUILDING WERE DEMOLISHED & GOOD QUALITIES WER PRESENT WHICH MADE AUTHOR THINK THAT ALL OLD BUILDING WERE OF GOOD QUALITY
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930 - STRENGTHENS
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:10 am
abhishek.pati 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 signifi cantly 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
Learn to recognize the common flaws.
This argument exhibits a change in scope.
The premise is about a very limited sampling: the hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the whole: all hotels built before 1930.

When an argument exhibits a change in scope, look for an answer choice that shows that sample ≠ whole.

Answer choice D: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.. The implication is that the poorly constructed hotels have been demolished. Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels. Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) ≠ the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

The correct answer is D.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 11:10 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by peelamedu » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:32 am
I'll go with D

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument?
Writer's Argument -> Quality of carpentry of hotels built in 1930 > Quality of carpentry of hotels built after 1930, as it's observed today.
Catch phrases here are hotels, 1930
To weaken the argument, we 'll have bring up something to do with hotels or 1930.

(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. - This weakens the argument as the author has not taken in to account the quality of carpentry in houses. Valid candidate.

(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930. - Ok. But not related.

(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in
quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - It doesn't qualify the materials also it doesn't weaken the argument.

(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. - This is shaking the foundation of the argument, questioning whether the author indeed visited all hotels over a long period of time. If pre-1930 hotels had bad carpentry, it would have been demolished and wouldn't have been included in the authors analysis - Valid candidate.

(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined signifi cantly since 1930 - Irrelevant

We have options A and D qualifying. Our question is what is the most serious of these two.
D more seriously undermines the author's argument.[/spoiler]
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:46 am
peelamedu wrote: (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. - This weakens the argument as the author has not taken in to account the quality of carpentry in houses. Valid candidate.
I'm glad that you chose the correct answer, but be careful: A is not a valid candidate.
The conclusion of the argument compares carpenters working on hotels before 1930 with carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.
The carpentry of other types of structures is beyond the scope of the argument.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:27 am
Thanked: 1 times

by abhishek.pati » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:22 am
OA is D

Thanks guys....
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by ruplun » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:12 am
why not option B.Plz elaborate
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1