gwd-4-14

Q14:
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.

搜索过，好像没有提问过，故提问。

参考答案说是D，但看到D觉得莫名其妙的，是无关的吧？

我认为选项是E。因为题干结论是：1930前的建木房子的工人工作得比之后的工人更细心、更有技术和努力。而E选项就用他因削弱说1930后的工人不是因为不细心而建得差的。

PHENOMENON:

the quality of the original carpentry work of hotels built before 1930 is generally superior to that in hotels built
afterward.

REASON:

Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care,
and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

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

D provides an alternative reason, not because skills of carpenters were different, but because the hotels with poor quality simply don't exist anymore. Thus, weaken.

同意楼上D

直白地解释D就是说，1930年以前的木工也是有好有坏，但是能留到今天的都是当初的好的木工，不好的都disuse或demolish了

所以不能以现在留下来的这些1930年以前的直接与1930年以后的做比较，削弱了原文的逻辑

D is the best answer.

Why? If D, "The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished", is true, then it is less likely for buildings with bad carpentry work to survive to today.  Therefore, the overall carpentry quality of the buildings that survived to today is likely inflated -- the author’s argument is severely weakened.

E is not relevant, because there is not necessarily any direct relationship between the "length of apprenticeship" and the "quality of the carpentry work".

B呢?住的人多了，房子破损的厉害啊。

D 原先的木工好 直接可以削弱结论

而B 人更多了 一定会导致木器差吧 不一定吧

所以对B和D的区别用结论来检验 可能会有用

同意楼上D

直白地解释D就是说，1930年以前的木工也是有好有坏，但是能留到今天的都是当初的好的木工，不好的都disuse或demolish了

所以不能以现在留下来的这些1930年以前的直接与1930年以后的做比较，削弱了原文的逻辑

可是30年以后的房子不好的也可能有被废弃的呀。所以从这点上讲是一样的前提。

看了楼市的解释，明白了，谢谢！

當看到答案也想不通為什麼的時候, 實在是鬱悶的很...

萬分感謝樓上們的解釋...