Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]
15 Jun 2006, 14:06
This post was BOOKMARKED
0% (00:00) correct
100% (05:14) wrong based on 2 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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.
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...
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.
C. It says explicatly in the passage that people seated in standard height chairs tend to linger around after their meal. That implies that if the people were setaed in some other form of chairs, they would move along once they are done with their meal and the restaurant can serve new customers.
This is the generalization that (C) is referring to from the passage: "Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables."
Answer C- "...exception to the generalization about lingering..." The passage has made a generalization that people seated on stools at restaurants stay for shorter periods of time then people at regular tables.
Choice C is saying that patrons of the Hollywood are the exception to this 'rule,' meaning they will be more likely to linger/stay longer even if they are seated at a tall table with stools