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?

 Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer’s argument?

1. 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.
2. Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
3. The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
4. The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
5. The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.

答案是D，我觉得应该选B。因为人多了，才导致酒店不好。

 what the argument about is the skill in 1930s' is better than that present.

question required us to see whether we can find out a situation that can undermines the argument

choice B:the capacity of the hotel is irrelevant to the point of the argument.

choice D:the better the quality of original carpentry in the building,the longer it will stand.What the author wanto say is that because the inferior building has broken down ,we can only see the best in the quality of original carpentry in the building.As far as we know ,we can not conclude that the best party of the carpentry in 1930 in liue of the whole level of the carpentry in 1930.

So D successfully weaken the conclusion above