Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Sep 2014, 06:33

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
4 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 347
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 56 [4] , given: 4

GMAT Tests User
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 14 Sep 2012, 22:50
4
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (02:23) correct 71% (01:31) wrong based on 420 sessions
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 114
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 5

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink] New post 14 Sep 2012, 23:08
Arbitrageur wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables



It looks from the Option 'D' that customers who sits on the tall table will order less expensive food. Is it mean that customers who sits on standard sixe table will order expensive? If this is the true than I suppose 'D' is right choise among all.
Option 'C' is just the opp of what the premise is. it says very few customers or may be exception who would like to sit on the tall table. however, the premise says customer prefer to sit on the tall table.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 347
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 4

GMAT Tests User
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink] New post 14 Sep 2012, 23:39
jitgoel wrote:
Arbitrageur wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables



It looks from the Option 'D' that customers who sits on the tall table will order less expensive food. Is it mean that customers who sits on standard sixe table will order expensive? If this is the true than I suppose 'D' is right choise among all.
Option 'C' is just the opp of what the premise is. it says very few customers or may be exception who would like to sit on the tall table. however, the premise says customer prefer to sit on the tall table.



I picked D as well, but the OA is C. I'm pretty dumbfounded by this answer.
4 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [4] , given: 13

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink] New post 15 Sep 2012, 02:39
4
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Arbitrageur wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available--irrelevant
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals- irrelevant ,
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering--weakens, place it as contender.
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer--weakens,
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables--Weaken, place it as contender


I also picked D initially, but when iterated again though the options, i found C to be a contender for the reasons below:
So C,D,E are in race for the answer.

I rejected E on the grounds because it mentions enough tall tables ,where as conclusion talks about some of the tables being replaced with taller ones.

D. a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer. If this option were true it will definitely weakens the conclusion.

Premise: Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

The combination of option D and this premise implies that people spend more time on std. tables and also pay more for their food.

----------------------------------------xxxxx-----------------------------------

C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering-

generalization about lingering---> people on std. table lingers over their food more then people sitting on stools.
exception about this generalization would be, if a guy lingers more while sitting on stool/tall table

Now this definitely hurts the argument, since if EVERY CUSTOMER(who sits on tall table/stool) made this exception, it will difficult for the Hollywood to make room for new customers.

out of c and D , IMO C is better because we are not sure about amount of money, people sitting on std. tables will be paying higher than as compared to people on stools.Whereas, if the hotel gets clogged due to lingering guests, its business will definitely suffer to some extent.
This question is real tough one, i relied on my assumptions to reach the answer but an expert reply is much awaited.
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos :)

1 KUDOS received
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 30 [1] , given: 11

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink] New post 17 Sep 2012, 03:00
1
This post received
KUDOS
Shawshank wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables


A and B are straight out as they discuss about the celebrities coming for dinner.

I find E somewhat irrelevant to the argument at hand.

D- This is a pretty general statement regarding people staying at the tables longer and ordering expensive food.
no where does it bring out the difference between standard height and tall tables.

C- Bingo! The general trend what people follow is that they come to holly wood only to watch celebrities and just linger on ;
they plan to replace standard height with tall tables so that they can increase their profits, but what if people are just lingering ?
How will that increase the profits?

Am I right with my understanding?
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Posts: 6
Location: Yugoslavia
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GMAT 1: 650 Q V
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 21

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2013, 07:55
C, it took me a about 3.5 min to see the issue here, but the catch is well hidden. By the way, since I live in Serbia where cafes are open and full 24/7, I guess this "problem" was kind of familiar to me xD
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 223
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 34

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 18 Sep 2013, 09:28
C Not D, as less expensive does not mean less profitable and vice versa. whereas C says that people actually do not prefer the tall dining tables, therefore this directly impacts the plan.
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 66
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 11

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 17 Mar 2014, 15:36
Hi,
Could anyone please clear my doubt.
Option (c) says that with tall tables, the lingering will stop or people will start sitting on their tables, but nowhere it is written that they will start ordering and profits of the restaurant would increase.
Option (d) says that 'a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer'. It is explicitly written that 'diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables'. Hence, with stools, people will start ordering expensive meals and this actually talks about certain likelihood of increase in the profits of the restaurant.
If any expert could help me out of it.
Thanks in advance!
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1666
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
WE: Corporate Finance (Investment Banking)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 274

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2014, 11:42
ankit0411 wrote:
Shawshank wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables


A and B are straight out as they discuss about the celebrities coming for dinner.

I find E somewhat irrelevant to the argument at hand.

D- This is a pretty general statement regarding people staying at the tables longer and ordering expensive food.
no where does it bring out the difference between standard height and tall tables.

C- Bingo! The general trend what people follow is that they come to holly wood only to watch celebrities and just linger on ;
they plan to replace standard height with tall tables so that they can increase their profits, but what if people are just lingering ?
How will that increase the profits?

Am I right with my understanding?


Yes you're close enough buddy, keep it up!
Cheers
J
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Tomorrow will be a new day...
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 926
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 340 [0], given: 199

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 04 Apr 2014, 12:15
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

Definition: Linger : To remain or stay on in a place longer than is usual or expected, as if from reluctance to leave.

Generalization about lingering :
Case 1. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at coffee shop with one coffee. We try to spend less money and try to spend more time bcz we just want to pass the time.
Case 2. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at some liquor lounge and try to gulp much before boarding gates to open. We try to spend more money and try to drink more, bcz we enjoy that.

Here Case 1 and Case 2 both are yielding opposite effect on profit, then exceptional customer to which Case we are considering.. bcz in one case he or she will profit the restaurant and in other case loss.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Expert Post
8 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 133
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 75 [8] , given: 22

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 04 Apr 2014, 13:52
8
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
As with all arguments, I like to first start by reading the question and then breaking down the argument into conclusion and premises. First the question:

Shawshank wrote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


Alright so I know now that I will be dealing with weaknesses in the argument. So I will keep that in mind as I break it down.

Shawshank wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.


Conclusion: Replace seating and profits will go up

Premise: People go to restaurant to see celebs
Premise: People want tall tables and seats to see the celebs
Premise: Diners on stools don't stay as long

Alright so there is the argument. Not a lot there to support the idea that profits will go up expect for the fact that there might be a faster turn over of tables. But there are a lot of assumptions here:

1. tall stools and tables won't deter people from spending as much as they did with normal tables
2. People actually want to see celebs and not eat food
3. Celebs will continue to come even if it easier for people to see them at the taller tables
...

Now it is time to look at the answer choices and see what makes the argument vulnerable. We need to look for reasons for why profits might not increase.

Shawshank wrote:
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available


Well, this is not a problem. This is just more support for having taller tables. The celebs will come to sit at the tall tables making it easier for people to see them. This is not a criticism. Eliminate.

Shawshank wrote:
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals


This too focused on the celebrities. The argument and the restaurant does not base its profits on how much celebs spend. Profits are based on all the other people coming to the restaurant. This is too narrowly focused so eliminate.

Shawshank wrote:
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering


This gets at one of the assumptions I had. If someone sits at a tall table, will they stay longer or leave faster. Here we have a possible example, or a question, about what these customers are like. The argument assumed that people at the Hollywood would leave quickly when at a tall table, like at other restaurants. But what if having a tall table means you can see the celebs. This might be a reason to stay. And thus there would not be a fast turn over. People might stay longer because they have a good view of a celeb whereas before, without a good view, people would just eat and leave. This looks like the answer.

Shawshank wrote:
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer


This is also close to what I was saying in the assumptions. But the problem is that this does not necessarily weaken the argument. People who stay less time order less expensive food which might cut into the profits. But if you have more people coming in to eat, and you can sit more people during your business hours, then ordering less expensive food won't be a problem. So this might be a problem, but not necessarily. Answer choice (C) would necessarily weaken the argument and cut into profits always. So this answer is not as good as D. But is a good tempting choice.

Shawshank wrote:
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables


This might also be a problem, but the argument doesn't say that they are going to jam tables into the restaurant. There is no mention of adding more seating. They are merely going to replace tables that they have. So this is outside the scope of the argument and wrong.

I hope that I was able to shed some light on this question. :)
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 6

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 07 Aug 2014, 04:36
Hi Kevin,

I was of the idea that since the question says "... it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" it is an Assumption question. Therefore, D and E are also invalid because they are statements which, if true, would weaken the argument but we are not looking for such statements. Instead we are looking for assumptions that the argument makes. And one assumption, as you pointed out as well, is that those occupying tall tables would be an exception to the lingering generalization.

Thus, D is the answer.
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 133
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 22

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 07 Aug 2014, 08:27
Expert's post
tsatomic wrote:
Hi Kevin,

I was of the idea that since the question says "... it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" it is an Assumption question. Therefore, D and E are also invalid because they are statements which, if true, would weaken the argument but we are not looking for such statements. Instead we are looking for assumptions that the argument makes. And one assumption, as you pointed out as well, is that those occupying tall tables would be an exception to the lingering generalization.

Thus, D is the answer.



Hi tsatomic, I understand the point that you are trying to make, but ultimately, this is a weakening question—not an assumption question. Look at the whole question stem:

Quote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


You can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Posts: 10
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 05-31-2024
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 22

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2014, 08:54
Quote:
can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D



Agreed. This is an assumption question. Not a weaken the argument question. We should all be aware that all Critical Reasoning questions can be broken down into three argument types: ascriptive arguments, descriptive arguments and prescriptive arguments. This is a prescriptive argument. A prescriptive argument will outline a problem and recommend a solution. The assumption in a prescription argument will always be "that the prescription works." So we need to find an answer choice that tells us that higher stools will not result in higher profits. Answer choice C does just that. If you have any reservations, use the negate test.
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 01 Sep 2014, 08:54
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
At present the hollywood restaurant has only standard-height quiet888 10 04 May 2008, 17:25
At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard msrinath 29 28 May 2007, 05:16
50 Experts publish their posts in the topic At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tennis_ball 56 01 Dec 2006, 21:16
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height buckkitty 18 15 Jun 2006, 14:06
At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard ronybtl 10 05 Dec 2005, 07:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.