nikhilkatira 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 ?

1) 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.

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

3) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

4) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building , the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

5) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

is it[spoiler] (E)[/spoiler]?
[spoiler](C) [/spoiler]seems to strengthen the argument by clearly stating that the material used was of the same quality pre and post 1930. so it seems to put the onus entirely on the skill of the carpenters.
Rest all options seem to be irrelevant to the argument.

What is the OA?

4) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building , the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

Better carpentry => Less likely to fall in disuse

Bad carpentry => more likely to fall

So, he is visiting only to those hotels, which had better carpentry. But how can we make judgement only of these only.

I assume that this will weaken.

akhp77 wrote:4) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building , the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.

Better carpentry => Less likely to fall in disuse

Bad carpentry => more likely to fall

So, he is visiting only to those hotels, which had better carpentry. But how can we make judgement only of these only.

I assume that this will weaken.

Thanks Akhilesh
Your explaination makes a inclination on choice "d".But how did you say that he is visiting only those hotels. Option "d" does not give such a clue. If yes plz suggest the trick.

the passage does say, he visted hotels through out the country, that means he has been to many hotels not just good quality ones.

i think the answer should be E
Thanks
Qavi

Please throw some more light on the explaination and OA : thank you

I agree with akhpad. IMO D

4) "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building , the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished."

This answer weakens the conclusion because it implies that the lesser quality buildings from the 1930's have already been demolished. In other words, only the best built buildings from the 1930's are still standing today.

The author's conclusion is that, "clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently". He is making a statement comparing the workmanship of the average carpenter today to the workmanship of the average carpenter in the 1930's.

This answer choice implies that he is actually comparing the workmanship of the best carpenters of the 1930's to the average carpenter of today. Therefore, the author's conclusion that on average carpenters were better in the 1930's is weakened.

OA is D.

akhpad has the correct answer...

The conclusion to this question is 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 quote the entire conclusion here because the conclusion is the king for strengthen and weaken questions, meaning that the exact wording of the conclusion is often very important.

The Evidence for the conclusion is that the hotels the guidebook writer visited that were built before 1930 had better carpentry.

Notice that the writer goes from the limited evidence of the pre 1930 hotels that were visited by the writer in the present day having better carpentry to the very general conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 were more skilled, etc.

You are looking for evidence as to why the carpentry of these hotels is better, that would not involve better carpentry in general. The answer might be that the hotels visited now are not representative of the all the hotels built back before the 1930s. How could this be? Well of course not all hotels built before 1930 would still exist and the ones that survived would likely be the ones worth keeping. So this could account for the difference. There is a selection process at work here - the better quality hotels are still here and the poorer quality are not.

This is what choice D says.

Thanks for appreciating my explanation