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.

what is your reasoning behind picking D?

C. a customer of the HOllywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering


CR says because of stools customers will not linger for long; However to see stars the customer might linger for longer i.e. exception.

Yep 'C' clocked around 3 mins...

Question :- Argument can be criticised because it supports some thing very close to one of the options given

C - Customers on tall table wouldn't mind spending the whole day there on pretext of eating the food but actually not...(just lingering around..)

This is very bad for the business..

A - out of context.. not discussed in the argument

B - not discussed in the argument..so no one can crticise based on this..

D - out of context...people visit mostly to catch a glimpse of celebreties..

E - neutral...it will be the same as now..standard heights...

Will go wtih C.

The author argues that people stay longer at resturants when they are in standard height tables than when they are seated in stools.
But the author concludes that replacing standard height tables with stools would increase the profits.

This gives someone a chance to say that the author is assumping that the general principle of sitting on stools will not be noticed in the resturant.

good job all, OA is C.

I chose D, C went right over my head and is the correct answer as explained first by haas mba.

btw, gmatmba, who IS that guy in your avatar? he stares at me all the time.

see how out of touch GMAT has made me with stuff like this!!!! It's RUINING me! I'll be sure to watch. thanks Haas[/quote]

D gives reasons to believe that profits are not going to increase, so it could be correct.
Thoughts on that?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

C. a customer of the HOllywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

In option C, what does "exception to the generalization about lingering" really mean??? I thought the customer was against lingering around and would leave quickly.

Can anyone please explain this??

Yup. .. thanks!