Q.1. 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 signi� 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 signi� cantly since 1930.
Q.2. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements.
(B) Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to
cut away vegetation after controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation.
(D) Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.
(E) Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.
OA After reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
CR: Arg Weakening Problem
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
saketk
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
nishant1309 wrote:Q.1. 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 signi� 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 signi� cantly since 1930.
FOR QUESTION NO.1
I arrived at the answer by elimination method .. Frankly speaking I did not like any of the choices much.
Option A: Irrelevant to this question. We are not discussing houses and stores.
Option B: Irrelevant .. Accommodation has nothing to do here.
Option C: This gives information about the material and nothing else.. So can be ruled out
Option E: This is rather strengthening the argument by providing a reason explaining the reason of degradation of the quality of carpenters. Less apprenticeship - Less Skills.
Option D: This option stands out. This option gives us information that although there were building with BAD quality, they were demolished. The only buildings which were made before 1930 are still there because of their comparatively good design. This weakens the argument by saying that the carpenters working before 1930 were not necessarily of better quality than the carpenters working after 1930
-
prashant.mishra
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:41 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:650
1. IMO D.
Q.1. 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.- OUT. Discussion is on carpentry in hotels prior to 1930 and carpentry in hotels since 1930. Irrelevant info.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.- OUT.. More guests could be accommodated in the newer hotels but what about the carpentry work ? That is the core of our conclusion, rt? Irrelevant Information.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not signi�cantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - OUT - Strengthens the argument by saying the other parameters were similar in nature.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.- CORRECT. The author assumes here that the number of hotels built before 1930 have reduced in number and very few remain. If this answer option were true, why did these hotels not last longer?
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined signi�cantly since 1930.- OUT - Irrelevant.
2. IMO D
Q.2. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements. - OUT.. ceramic ware?? wr did this come from? The author has used Stone implements to support his claim. Irrelevant.
(B) Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.- OUT - Irrelevant.. agriculture may have started 4500 years ago.. but does it throw any light on whether this agriculture was done by Mayan settlements? Mayan settlements could indeed have been in to agriculture around that time (and then it would have strengthened the argument).. Anyways, I will call this irrelevant.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to cut away vegetation after controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation. - OUT- Were the Mayan settlements present 4500 years ago? Fine the stone implements were used to cut away .. blah blah ..Still doesn't answer the main question !!
(D) Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.- CORRECT.. Ohh yes !! this was what we were looking for.. This puts the author in trouble !! If there were cultures which used stone agriculture implements and Mayan settlements used these implements 3000 years ago, the resemblance of these tools to Mayan settlements 3000 years ago is clear.. It was Mayan settlements who picked up these tools that were used by cultures that inhabited Colha 4500 years ago.
(E) Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.- OUT - Irrelevant.
Q.1. 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.- OUT. Discussion is on carpentry in hotels prior to 1930 and carpentry in hotels since 1930. Irrelevant info.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.- OUT.. More guests could be accommodated in the newer hotels but what about the carpentry work ? That is the core of our conclusion, rt? Irrelevant Information.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not signi�cantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - OUT - Strengthens the argument by saying the other parameters were similar in nature.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.- CORRECT. The author assumes here that the number of hotels built before 1930 have reduced in number and very few remain. If this answer option were true, why did these hotels not last longer?
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined signi�cantly since 1930.- OUT - Irrelevant.
2. IMO D
Q.2. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements. - OUT.. ceramic ware?? wr did this come from? The author has used Stone implements to support his claim. Irrelevant.
(B) Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.- OUT - Irrelevant.. agriculture may have started 4500 years ago.. but does it throw any light on whether this agriculture was done by Mayan settlements? Mayan settlements could indeed have been in to agriculture around that time (and then it would have strengthened the argument).. Anyways, I will call this irrelevant.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to cut away vegetation after controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation. - OUT- Were the Mayan settlements present 4500 years ago? Fine the stone implements were used to cut away .. blah blah ..Still doesn't answer the main question !!
(D) Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.- CORRECT.. Ohh yes !! this was what we were looking for.. This puts the author in trouble !! If there were cultures which used stone agriculture implements and Mayan settlements used these implements 3000 years ago, the resemblance of these tools to Mayan settlements 3000 years ago is clear.. It was Mayan settlements who picked up these tools that were used by cultures that inhabited Colha 4500 years ago.
(E) Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.- OUT - Irrelevant.
-
saketk
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
Oh! This one is also with weak answer choice. And coincidentally correct answer for this one also is Dnishant1309 wrote:
Q.2. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements.
(B) Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to cut away vegetation after controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation.
(D) Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.
(E) Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.
OA After reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
Option B,C and E are irrelevant. They tell us nothing about the Mayan civilization.
Option A talks about ceramics use. But this also does not help us infer anything about the time period mentioned here.
Though Option D is the right answer.. I feel that the flaw here is that why only Mayans adapted the methods of earlier civilization and why not other civilizations.
-
prashant.mishra
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:41 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:650
Ok. I can easily say this to the author, "You do agree that the earlier settlements use earlier methods. You are right when you say other civilizations may have used the previous methods aged 4500 years old. But you yourself wont overrule that it could be mayan settlements who took over the previous methods. This means you are not sure yourself. So when you are not sure can you conclude your point that Mayan settlements inhabited Colha 4500 years ago and not 3500 years ago convincingly ?"saketk wrote:
Though Option D is the right answer.. I feel that the flaw here is that why only Mayans adapted the methods of earlier civilization and why not other civilizations.
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Q.3. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
OA after reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
OA after reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
-
prashant.mishra
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:41 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:650
Hey .. whats the OA for the two questions posted earlier ?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
If u found my posts useful,would it not be fair to press the "Thank button" and say -"THANK YOU" ?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
If u found my posts useful,would it not be fair to press the "Thank button" and say -"THANK YOU" ?
-
saketk
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
This one is good question. The answer is A.nishant1309 wrote:Q.3. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
OA after reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
options B,C and E are non relevant to this stem. Option C looks totally nonsensical to me.
Between option A and D. To counter the question asked in D the author would simply say that they reply in the same way because they are all actually deaf.
Option A is the only option which tries to weaken the argument by saying that 'if the people are actually deaf, then they should say 'YES' to confirm it.
The important thing to note in the weakening question is that the statement should ask the relevant question to start with.
-
prashant.mishra
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:41 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:650
IMO A.
saketk wrote:This one is good question. The answer is A.nishant1309 wrote:Q.3. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"? CORRECT.- If there are 2 parts, how does the part that replies come to know that there is another part of the self which has gone deaf !! (the author is assuming that the part that replies is exclusive of the other part)
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation? - OUT- Irrelevant
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?- OUT- Irrelevant.
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described? -OUT- This Strengthens the theorists' viewpoint !!
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects? - OUT Strengthens the theorists !
OA after reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
options B,C and E are non relevant to this stem. Option C looks totally nonsensical to me.
Between option A and D. To counter the question asked in D the author would simply say that they reply in the same way because they are all actually deaf.
Option A is the only option which tries to weaken the argument by saying that 'if the people are actually deaf, then they should say 'YES' to confirm it.
The important thing to note in the weakening question is that the statement should ask the relevant question to start with.
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
@ prashant.mishra: Ref. Q.1.: Assumption (in bold) as you have suggested in answer choice D, doesn't seem to be in context. I could hardly assume that no. of pre-1930 holtels have reduced.
An alternative explanation, what i could deliberate is: this answer choice shifts the reasoning for usage/life of the building to quality (final output) of carpentry instead of skill, care & efforts putin by the individual carpenter. That means, even if the carpenter is skilled, careful and puts sincere efforts the quality may not be superior and vice-versa. There are some other factors as well, which attribute to the quality of carpentry and hence the life/usage of the building.
Q.1. 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.- OUT. Discussion is on carpentry in hotels prior to 1930 and carpentry in hotels since 1930. Irrelevant info.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.- OUT.. More guests could be accommodated in the newer hotels but what about the carpentry work ? That is the core of our conclusion, rt? Irrelevant Information.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not signi�cantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930. - OUT - Strengthens the argument by saying the other parameters were similar in nature.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.- CORRECT. The author assumes here that the number of hotels built before 1930 have reduced in number and very few remain. If this answer option were true, why did these hotels not last longer?
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined signi�cantly since 1930.- OUT - Irrelevant.
2. IMO D
Q.2. The earliest Mayan pottery found at Colha, in Belize, is about 3,000 years old. Recently, however, 4,500-year-old stone agricultural implements were unearthed at Colha. These implements resemble Mayan stone implements of a much later period, also found at Colha. Moreover, the implements' designs are strikingly different from the designs of stone implements produced by other cultures known to have inhabited the area in prehistoric times. Therefore, there were surely Mayan settlements in Colha 4,500 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Ceramic ware is not known to have been used by the Mayan people to make agricultural implements. - OUT.. ceramic ware?? wr did this come from? The author has used Stone implements to support his claim. Irrelevant.
(B) Carbon-dating of corn pollen in Colha indicates that agriculture began there around 4,500 years ago.- OUT - Irrelevant.. agriculture may have started 4500 years ago.. but does it throw any light on whether this agriculture was done by Mayan settlements? Mayan settlements could indeed have been in to agriculture around that time (and then it would have strengthened the argument).. Anyways, I will call this irrelevant.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that some of the oldest stone implements found at Colha were used to cut away vegetation after controlled burning of trees to open areas of swampland for cultivation. - OUT- Were the Mayan settlements present 4500 years ago? Fine the stone implements were used to cut away .. blah blah ..Still doesn't answer the main question !!
(D) Successor cultures at a given site often adopt the style of agricultural implements used by earlier inhabitants of the same site.- CORRECT.. Ohh yes !! this was what we were looking for.. This puts the author in trouble !! If there were cultures which used stone agriculture implements and Mayan settlements used these implements 3000 years ago, the resemblance of these tools to Mayan settlements 3000 years ago is clear.. It was Mayan settlements who picked up these tools that were used by cultures that inhabited Colha 4500 years ago.
(E) Many religious and social institutions of the Mayan people who inhabited Colha 3,000 years ago relied on a highly developed system of agricultural symbols.- OUT - Irrelevant.[/quote]
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
@ GmatKiss: Pl. refer my explanation and affirm if you agree. Hope that helps!
A longer or shorter duration of apprenticeship doesn't necessarily qualifies the carpenter to be skilled, careful & sincere. You may argue that the more you practice, more skills you develop but vise-versa is not necessarily true always. You may find artisans with great skills but having lesser practice. We do find genius guys around ...right?
-
nishant1309
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
saketk wrote:This one is good question. The answer is A.nishant1309 wrote:Q.3. When hypnotized subjects are told that they are deaf and are then asked whether they can hear the hypnotist, they reply, "No." Some theorists try to explain this result by arguing that the selves of hypnotized subjects are dissociated into separate parts, and that the part that is deaf is dissociated from the part that replies.
Which of the following challenges indicates the most serious weakness in the attempted explanation described above?
(A) Why does the part that replies not answer, "Yes"?
(B) Why are the observed facts in need of any special explanation?
(C) Why do the subjects appear to accept the hypnotist's suggestion that they are deaf?
(D) Why do hypnotized subjects all respond the same way in the situation described?
(E) Why are the separate parts of the self the same for all subjects?
OA after reasonable discussion. Please do EXPLAIN your answers.
options B,C and E are non relevant to this stem. Option C looks totally nonsensical to me. Why? If the senses which can hear are dissociated with senses which are deaf, when one is told you are deaf, the deaf senses wont respond but the hearing senses would simply not accept it because they can hear.
Between option A and D. To counter the question asked in D the author would simply say that they reply in the same way because they are all actually deaf. No, they are not actually deaf. They are actually hypnotised and thier senses are dissociated into deaf and hearing senses (which makes them reply). The hearing senses may not respond in similar fashion always.
Option A is the only option which tries to weaken the argument by saying that 'if the people are actually deaf, then they should say 'YES' to confirm it.
The important thing to note in the weakening question is that the statement should ask the relevant question to start with.
