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 after few explanations

Is it B?

Since the hotels built post 1930 accomodated more guests , the structure required maybe different , hence difference in skillsets

Preeti - You missed it. One more chance ....

Appears to be E ?

We have to find some other reason for a drop in quality.It's assumed that the drop in quality is coz of more skill,effort etc....E gives us a different reason why the quality might have dropped...Was also confused with D. D provides a reason why the Hotels that remain since 1930 are still kept - it may so happen that the author is reviewing the quality of buildings that were not demolished- and what remain are those that are superior in quality...so,was stuck between both choices....will go with E - what's the OA? I have a habbit of choosing the wrong one when stuck with 2 ..I hope I am not wrong again this time

Is it D ? If only the good quality ones remain, then we cannot conclude
that all carpenters before 1930 were good.

Jay - Right on target - OA is D

Can someone please explain the OA. I don't see from D that it gives any info on the metter that carpenters before 1930 were better

The reasoning is that the author is only evaluating hotels in existence today.

So, if only good hotels survive long periods of time, then if the hotel is old, then it must be a good hotel.

Whereas with hotels built recently, he's evaluating both good and bad carpentry.

So he's comparing only good old hotels to good and bad new hotels to say carpentry was better before 1930.

Damn, again, I chose the wrong one between two !
Henceforth,when stuck between two,I will choose the one that I feel is not close to my heart

A- Out if scope, we are talking about comparisons among hotels not houses and other buildings
B- Not relevant
C- This strength the conclusion
D- This is a plausible explanation, so only the hotels that had very good carpentry are still in operation, but there were other hotels they had bad carpentry which not longer exist, so basically there were good and bad carpenters before 1930 as they are now
E- This will also strengths the conclusion

So I go with D

Can someone please explain why is E incorrect ...

What is wrong in this reasoning ...

If the Old carpenters got to work more they did better ..
The new carpenters spend less time and hence bad quality ..

Please explain D in more details.....although i understand that E seems the correct one

Thanks!