BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Critical Reasoning--Set-23-Q-2

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

Critical Reasoning--Set-23-Q-2

by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:20 am
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.

What can be the answer?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:51 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:750

by fitzgerald23 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:34 am
Here are the things you need to know:

1. The author feels that hotels built before 1930 show superior carpentry work than those built after
2. He concludes that this is because the pre 1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill and care than post 1930 carpenters

A. Incorrect. Has nothing to do with the arguments here since we are comparing hotels and hotels and it has nothing to do with homes or stores

B. Incorrect. Size of the structure has nothing to do with the argument.

C. Incorrect. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If the materials they built with are the same than clearly the pre 1930s folks showed better effort in working with the same items/

D. Correct. What this tells us is that hotels exhibiting poor carpentry are going to be demolished as time goes on. Because of that it is logical to assume that the only pre 1930 hotels remaining are of excellent construction to remain in use all these years later while the post 1930 hotels are not old enough to have yet fallen into disuse and subsequently being torn down. Due to this the appearance is given that the old hotels are constructed better than new ones.

E. Incorrect. This also would strengthen the conclusion. This is telling us that newer carpenters dont receive as much training which would likely be reflected in poorer work.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:36 am
Thanked: 6 times

by kapur.arnav » Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:24 pm
prachich1987 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.

What can be the answer?
would go with E...
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:00 pm
kapur.arnav wrote:
prachich1987 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.

What can be the answer?
would go with E...

"D" is the right answer.
It cannot be "E".See the explanation given by fitzgerald23
But why it should be "D".I am not very convinced
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:47 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:10 members
GMAT Score:700

by prachich1987 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:03 pm
fitzgerald23 wrote:Here are the things you need to know:

1. The author feels that hotels built before 1930 show superior carpentry work than those built after
2. He concludes that this is because the pre 1930 hotel carpenters worked with more skill and care than post 1930 carpenters

A. Incorrect. Has nothing to do with the arguments here since we are comparing hotels and hotels and it has nothing to do with homes or stores

B. Incorrect. Size of the structure has nothing to do with the argument.

C. Incorrect. This strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If the materials they built with are the same than clearly the pre 1930s folks showed better effort in working with the same items/

D. Correct. What this tells us is that hotels exhibiting poor carpentry are going to be demolished as time goes on. Because of that it is logical to assume that the only pre 1930 hotels remaining are of excellent construction to remain in use all these years later while the post 1930 hotels are not old enough to have yet fallen into disuse and subsequently being torn down. Due to this the appearance is given that the old hotels are constructed better than new ones.

E. Incorrect. This also would strengthen the conclusion. This is telling us that newer carpenters dont receive as much training which would likely be reflected in poorer work.
Further to your explanation above,
Is the write talking only about the strength & durability of the construction.
I think he is talking in an art point of view.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 am
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
Followed by:27 members
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:32 am
I do not think the writer is writing from the art point of view, we cannot assume the same. We want a clear reason why hotels built after 1930 did not have the same quality of carpentry? If its not skill,effort and care what is it?

to weaken, we need to bring in new evidence which shall be able to explain the issue.
A. deviates..we are only talking about hotels.
B. more guests can be accomodated...so..? we would have to assume that more guests=> degradation of quality?
C. This does not weaken.
D. This probably gives a new dimention as to why older buildings had better quality of orignal carpentry, there wouldn't be one if it had poor quality of carpentry & materials.
E. This does not weaken but supports that worker skill level has reduced.
D should be the answer.

hope this helps!
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1