Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel's lobby was

[JbhB682]

Source : GMAT prep

Advertisement: Ten years ago, the Cormond Hotel's lobby was carpeted with Duratex carpet while the lobby of a nearby hotel was being carpeted with our competitor's most durable carpet. Today, after a decade in which the two hotels have had similar amounts of foot traffic through their lobbies, that other hotel is having to replace the worn-out carpeting near its lobby entrances, whereas the Cormond's Duratex carpeting has years of wear left in it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the advertisement's evidence for concluding that Duratex carpet is more durable than the carpet of its competitor?

A. The lobby of the Cormond Hotel has five different entrances, but the lobby of the other hotel has only two.
B. The carpet of the Cormond Hotel's lobby is not the most durable carpet that Duratex manufactures.
C. The other hotel has a popular restaurant that can be reached from outside without walking through the hotel lobby.
D. The carpet that is being used to replace carpeting near the other hotel's lobby entrances is not Duratex carpet.
E. There is a third hotel near the other two that has not replaced the Duratex carpet in its lobby for more than 15 years.

[JbhB682]

Just wondering if my thought on C are accurate

1) C says you don't have to cross the lobby to reach the restaurant BUT doesn't tell you if you have to or you don't have to cross the lobby ENTRANCE specifically (two different areas per my understanding) to reach the restaurant.

Reason I bring this up is that the argument is talking about replacing the lobby entrance carpet (not the lobby carpet)

2) Given it's equally possible that the customer of the restaurant disturb the lobby entrance carpet or not disturb the lobby entrance carpet at all [ Answer C doesn't specify]

Given we don't know which, I kept option C open as a possibility (didn't cross it off completely as there was two equally possible scenarios regarding the lobby entrance carpet)

In situations like these where an option allows for two scenario's and
-- one scenario does impact the conclusion
-- other scenario does not impact the conclusion

Do you then go ahead and cancel this option or do you perhaps play safe and keep it open ?

Thank you !

[esledge]

In situations like these where an option allows for two scenario's and
-- one scenario does impact the conclusion
-- other scenario does not impact the conclusion

Do you then go ahead and cancel this option or do you perhaps play safe and keep it open ?

Thank you !

Play it safe and eliminate that choice (on Strengthen and Weaken questions)! If you think that a choice could affect the conclusion or not, that it "would depend" on the answer to some other lingering question (such as your "do you have to cross the lobby entrance to get to the restaurant?"), then the GMAT writers would simply say that the choice is irrelevant at best, opposite at worst. Either way, it's not the right answer.