GWD-7-Q2:谢谢

Q2:

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?

   Answer: d

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.

一点思路都没有,求大家帮帮忙啊,谢谢

这题比较的阴险，呵呵，有点像田忌赛马。

作者看到了1930年保存至今的老房子的木工质量比现在的好，就说以前的木工比现在的好。

问削弱

作者拿1930年最好的东西和现在的比是，当然说好

但是为什么不提1930年做的差的东西呢？因为已经不存在了，倒塌了，废弃了，所以作者没有看到。

作者凭借看到了最好的建筑就说那个年代大体上木工都比现在的好，是有问题的。就想拿天安门和我家来比，那古代的人确实巧夺天宫。那要天安门和长江三峡比呢？那现代人也不差到哪里去。

因此D说好的东西是不会被废弃的。意思就是说，作者看到的只是好的东西，没有看到坏的东西，所以单凭这一点是不能推出整体一个概念说，过去比现在的好。也许过去也没几个好的，总体质量还不如现在，但是保存到现在的都是好的。

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=152533&replyID=&skin=1

可以做参考