• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• FREE GMAT Exam
Know how you'd score today for $0 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Practice Test & Review How would you score if you took the GMAT Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5 Day FREE Trial Study Smarter, Not Harder Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Award-winning private GMAT tutoring Register now and save up to$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

OG question

This topic has 11 expert replies and 13 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
nitinmenon89 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
05 Jul 2014
Posted:
30 messages

OG question

Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:03 pm

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Difficult

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

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:44 am
nitinmenon89 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
The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling â‰  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.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) â‰  the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
nikhilgmat31 Legendary Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Posted:
518 messages
10
Test Date:
3 Oct
Target GMAT Score:
750
Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:43 am

However if statement C is little reversed, it can give tight competition to D.
If C says
The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were significantly better in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.

kalika991 Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Posted:
1 messages
Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:12 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
nitinmenon89 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
The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling â‰  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.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) â‰  the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??

nikhilgmat31 Legendary Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Posted:
518 messages
10
Test Date:
3 Oct
Target GMAT Score:
750
Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:48 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
nitinmenon89 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
The premise is about a very limited SAMPLING: hotels that the guidebook writer has visited.
The conclusion is about the WHOLE: all hotels built before 1930.

The writer assumes that what is true for the SAMPLING is true for the WHOLE.
To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer choice will show that sampling â‰  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.
Implication:
The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished.
Clearly, the guidebook writer could not have visited these hotels.
Thus, the sampling (the hotels that the writer has visited) â‰  the whole (all hotels built before 1930).

Hi Mitch,

I agree with answer as D, But Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:14 am
kalika991 wrote:
I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??
The author bases his conclusion on hotels that he has VISITED.
Answer choice D indicates that poorly constructed buildings are typically TORN DOWN.
Implication:
Most of the pre-1930 hotels that were poorly constructed have been torn down, WEAKENING the author'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.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:18 am
nikhilgmat31 wrote:
Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.
If anything, a longer apprenticeship for pre-1930 carpenters STRENGTHENS the 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.
Since the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate E.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
nikhilgmat31 Legendary Member
Joined
12 May 2015
Posted:
518 messages
10
Test Date:
3 Oct
Target GMAT Score:
750
Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:20 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
nikhilgmat31 wrote:
Option E is equally good as it says the training period of carpenters has been reduced since 1930.
If anything, a longer apprenticeship for pre-1930 carpenters STRENGTHENS the 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.
Since the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate E.
OK , my mistake. I got confused .

anant03 Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
01 Sep 2015
Posted:
70 messages
Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:52 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
kalika991 wrote:
I still fail to understand why the answer is D??
the paragrapgh says that "the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior" for hotels built before 1930, which nowhere means that the carpentry in hotels build after 1930 were of poor quality, then how is option D valid??
The author bases his conclusion on hotels that he has VISITED.
Answer choice D indicates that poorly constructed buildings are typically TORN DOWN.
Implication:
Most of the pre-1930 hotels that were poorly constructed have been torn down, WEAKENING the author'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.
Hi Mitch ,

Everything is clear , but option D doesn't indicate after 1930. We have to find something, which indicates about after 1930.

RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
907 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:45 am
Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?

P.S: Other Verbal Experts - KINDLY feel free to shed light as well on this aspect/on my above interpretation!

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Sat Sep 19, 2015 2:41 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work.
But what about pre-1930 hotels that do NOT still exist?
According to the OA, any pre-1930 hotels NOT still in existence were probably NOT well-built, WEAKENING the 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.

The OA points out the flaw in the writer's reasoning:
The writer cites information about a SAMPLING (pre-1930 hotels still in existence) to render a conclusion about the WHOLE (all pre-1930 hotels) -- a clear change in scope.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:01 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?
An important take-away:
You are attempting to use the information in the OA to strengthen a PREMISE (that the pre-1930 hotels that the writer visited are well-built).
A premise is a FACT.
It CANNOT be strengthened.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
907 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:45 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi GMATGuruNY,
In your above post you've mentioned that the Implication of the OA is "The country's poorly constructed hotels have probably been demolished."

Now if I construe that the option D actually STRENGTHENS the argument (hence its conclusion) as,I guess, D could also mean that hotels built before 1930 still EXIST because they're of better quality of original carpentry work and it makes them strong enough to sustain in spite of being older than post-1930 hotels, then how it'll be wrong ?
An important take-away:
You are attempting to use the information in the OA to strengthen a PREMISE (that the pre-1930 hotels that the writer visited are well-built).
A premise is a FACT.
It CANNOT be strengthened.
Hi GMATGuruNY - I understand you explanations above...

However,NOT able to get it completely why it'd be INCORRECT to say that if better quality of building carpentry means lower probability of building demolition then it's clear(AT LEAST, MOST LIKELY) that carpenters of pre-1930 hotels were more skilled than the carpenters of post-1930 hotels (and that's why pre-1930 hotels STILL EXIST). Otherwise, how it'd be possible for pre-1930 hotels to be STILL in EXISTENCE!

Also, a quick BUT IMPORTANT clarification required on your above post -- So,when we say that a particular option STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the ARGUMENT, we ESSENTIALLY means that the Option actually STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
14306 messages
Followed by:
1825 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:34 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
However,NOT able to get it completely why it'd be INCORRECT to say that if better quality of building carpentry means lower probability of building demolition
Why are the pre-1930 hotels that the guidebook writer visited still standing?
Because of their superior construction.
This is how you are attempting to interpret D.
But the conclusion is not about the hotels that the writer VISITED.
The conclusion is about ALL carpenters who worked on pre-1930 hotels.
It is possible that THOUSANDS of pre-1930 hotels have been torn down because of poor carpentry.
To strengthen the conclusion that pre-1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill than post-1930 hotel carpenters, D would have to show that very few pre-1930 hotels have been demolished because of poor carpentry.

Quote:
Also, a quick BUT IMPORTANT clarification required on your above post -- So,when we say that a particular option STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the ARGUMENT, we ESSENTIALLY means that the Option actually STRENGTHENS/WEAKENS the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?
Correct.
Any answer choice that attempts to strengthen or weaken a premise is WRONG.
A premise is a FACT: it cannot be strengthened or weakened.
The correct answer choice must strengthen or weaken the CONCLUSION.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
907 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:30 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
Why are the pre-1930 hotels that the guidebook writer visited still standing?
Because of their superior construction.
This is how you are attempting to interpret D.
But the conclusion is not about the hotels that the writer VISITED.
The conclusion is about ALL carpenters who worked on pre-1930 hotels.
OK. So, in the conclusion as it's NOT EXPLCITLY mentioned that writer is ONLY talking about hotels that he/she visited, we'd have to CONSIDER ALL pre-1930 hotels IN GENERAL. Right ?

And,GENERALLY, ( in any CR questions) if there is NO EXPLICIT information of any SPECIFICS like above, then we should ALWAYS consider that particular stuff as a whole IN GENERAL. Correct me please if wrong!

Top First Responders*

1 GMATGuruNY 87 first replies
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow 66 first replies
3 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 35 first replies
4 Jay@ManhattanReview 25 first replies
5 Sionainn@Princeto... 16 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

142 posts
2 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

128 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

123 posts
4 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

102 posts
5 Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

88 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts