thank you testluv and Kevin.

I appreciate your efforts to explain the answer. I am convinced

Hi TestLuv,

I understand that A is wrong bcoz it does not mention anything about the time. But, if the option were:

The quality of original carpentry in hotels before 1930 is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores during the same period.

Will it weaken the arguments claim. I feel it will bcoz it shows carpenters made different quality work...may be good quality for hotel but bad for houses. It may be possible that carpenters post 1930 made good quality for other places not for hotels. So, we cann say carpenters before 1930 built houses were better just from hotel example.

Will it a right way to evaluate this framed option.

Thanks

I can only salute to the person who got this question right in their first attempt. More of a mental torture than a mental puzzle

While solving D stood out clearly to me. But while reviewing, I noticed that OG explanation calls E a Strengthener - how? I thought it was a very weak weakener and discarded it. Could one of the experts please help me comprehend this thought?

Thanks.

Hello Testluv

Please clarify one doubt here. Conclusion states - carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

and ans D states : The better the quality of original carpentry......... Is it because both relate to quality of work Ans D is correct?

thanks

Sorry for bumping into an old post.

I think that option B weakens the argument, although its very clear that D is the best option.

I want to know if my reasoning about choice B is correct.

B. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.

My Reasoning: The capacity of hotels built before 1930 less than that of hotels built after 1930. Hence, the number of people who were in contact with the carpentry work was low. As a result, hotels built before 1930 had fewer chances of being damaged and are in better condition.

Thanks in advance!

prudhviram -

You said that option B - although clearly not the correct answer - seems to weaken the argument a bit and you went on to explain:

My Reasoning: The capacity of hotels built before 1930 less than that of hotels built after 1930. Hence, the number of people who were in contact with the carpentry work was low. As a result, hotels built before 1930 had fewer chances of being damaged and are in better condition.

Do you see how many assumptions you are making here? You are assuming that larger projects mean more carpenters (a logical assumption) and that this in turn results in lower quality (a huge assumption). Think of the great hotels of the world. The beautiful resort hotels from the past and from now. The quality of the work is excellent. Now think of many small projects you have seen, some small hotel or shop that is very shabby.

Choice B is actually irrelevant. The quality cannot be judged by the number of guests accommodated.

There is only one correct answer here and that is D. The others are not even in the game.

Hope it helps!

David

David@VeritasPrep wrote:prudhviram -

You said that option B - although clearly not the correct answer - seems to weaken the argument a bit and you went on to explain:

My Reasoning: The capacity of hotels built before 1930 less than that of hotels built after 1930. Hence, the number of people who were in contact with the carpentry work was low. As a result, hotels built before 1930 had fewer chances of being damaged and are in better condition.

Do you see how many assumptions you are making here? You are assuming that larger projects mean more carpenters (a logical assumption) and that this in turn results in lower quality (a huge assumption). Think of the great hotels of the world. The beautiful resort hotels from the past and from now. The quality of the work is excellent. Now think of many small projects you have seen, some small hotel or shop that is very shabby.

Choice B is actually irrelevant. The quality cannot be judged by the number of guests accommodated.

There is only one correct answer here and that is D. The others are not even in the game.

Hope it helps!

David

David,

Thanks for the prompt and elaborate reply!

My apologies, I wasn't very clear when I said 'Hence, the number of people who were in contact with the carpentry work was low'.

I was refering to the increased number of hotel guests who would be staying at the hotels not increased number of the carpenters who would be needed to build larger capacity hotels.

I thought it was reasonable to assume that as the number of guests using the hotel increases, the wear and tear of the carpentry in the hotels built after 1930 would be greater than that in the hotels built before 1930. An effect that points out to the observed low quality of carpentry of the hotels built after 1930. Hence, this could be an alternate explanation to weaken the writer's conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

I definitely do not dispute any official answers. My only intent is to understand the extent to which GMAT wants the test taker to reasonably make assumptions.

-Ram

I see...

That is a big assumption though isn't it? That hotel guests using a place would lead to the idea that the carpentry is bad? I mean I am no "guide book writer" but I think that when I rated the carpentry it would be the quality of the cuts made, how everything lined up, whether there were intricate designs carved, etc.

I actually doubt that whether the building had some wear and tear would influence the evaluation of the carpentry. For example, I have walked on some famous staircases that are known for their beauty, but that have a worn spot in the middle where thousands and thousands of feet have walked.

You are allowed to make a "reasonable assumption" if necessary. For example there is an official problem that requires you to assume that tall buildings are built on more expensive land - as opposed to say, farmland or village land.

Your assumption would not fit this category of reasonable assumptions. Many people seem to seek out reasons why a particular answer "could be" correct. The correct answer simple is correct.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:I see...

That is a big assumption though isn't it? That hotel guests using a place would lead to the idea that the carpentry is bad? I mean I am no "guide book writer" but I think that when I rated the carpentry it would be the quality of the cuts made, how everything lined up, whether there were intricate designs carved, etc.

I actually doubt that whether the building had some wear and tear would influence the evaluation of the carpentry. For example, I have walked on some famous staircases that are known for their beauty, but that have a worn spot in the middle where thousands and thousands of feet have walked.

You are allowed to make a "reasonable assumption" if necessary. For example there is an official problem that requires you to assume that tall buildings are built on more expensive land - as opposed to say, farmland or village land.

Your assumption would not fit this category of reasonable assumptions. Many people seem to seek out reasons why a particular answer "could be" correct. The correct answer simple is correct.

I think I get your point. Your example of the worn spot makes it quite clear.

I missed the point that when judging the quality of carpentry, the guide book writer is probably going to take the 'wear and tear' that comes with age into account.

Thanks again for your help!

-Ram

greate question and great discussion. I think there can be a fair bit of assumption on B which can make it a good choice.
Hotels after 1930 were built for capacity. So the construction did not FOCUS on carpentry (not that skill was not available). This might NOT have lead to good carpentry. Here there is no assumption on the amount of carpentry. Just the focus shifted from good architecture to more capacity.

geet 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.

OA l8r...do explain your logic!!!

I received a PM asking me to comment on this one.

Conclusion: carpenters worked with more care/skill on pre-1930 hotels
Evidence: pre-1930 hotels have higher quality carpentry

This is a classic instance of a survivor bias. Take a simple example. Say that, in 1929, there were 10 hotels in existence. Of these 10 hotels, 2 were extremely high quality and 8 were not. Over the years, the 8 low-quality hotels fell into disuse and were demolished, so only the 2 high-quality hotels were left standing.

Now imagine that someone today does a survey of pre-1930 hotels. He sees that there are two pre-1930 hotels, and both are beautiful. He then concludes that because 100% of the pre-1930 hotels are high quality, the pre-1930 carpenters were simply better craftsmen than carpenters are today. Obviously, this logic is faulty because the low-quality pre-1930 hotels disappeared and were therefore not part of his analysis. It's not the case that pre-1930 carpenters were better, but rather that only the high-quality buildings were likely to survive, and thus the analysis is incomplete because it overlooks all the low-quality pre-1930 buildings that have vanished. This is the notion that D captures.

Hi DavidG, Can I please ask you to review my analysis on the case? And let me know if my reasoning is good enough?

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. "‹

Argument is linking quality with skill. With more skills, people produces higher quality.

More the skill used - higher the quality of the developments

Conclusion is trying to present a contrapositive scenario.but this is only possible when both the above events have causal linkage.

We need to present a scenario where this linkage is broken

It was not the skill that made a building strong rather the specific requirements that demanded the buildings be strong.

Thanks in anticipation.