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

 It is currently 25 Sep 2016, 03:37

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 208
Schools: HEC Paris, , Tepper
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 8

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2009, 23:56
Hi!

Nice explanation, and nice question! My initial choice was also D.

I find the last explanation very appealing, but am still confused about the following: why the author has the right to assume that people who do celebrity-watching do also linger? This point is not explicitly stated in the argument (if it was, this question would have been much easier.) And for me, it is not within "common sense knowledge" to assume that "celebrity-watchers" also tend to linger at the restaurant.

Any comment?
_________________

If you like my post, a kudos is not expected but appreciated

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 20

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2009, 05:37
Agree with 11MBA. Good reasoning.
C for me.
Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 1

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2009, 10:45
Hi 11MBA,

Im sorry still i don't understand the meaning of 'C' and how it's right?

Do you mean by lingering less, people will eat less and hence more profit.What is generalization about lingering?
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 175
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 173 [1] , given: 3

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2009, 18:55
1
KUDOS
Tough one for sure E looked perfect.
_________________

Rock On

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 224
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 11

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 07:37
Really tough one, thanks for the explanation guys. I understand now why C it is.
Manager
Status: Keep fighting!
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 235
WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 401 [0], given: 104

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2010, 17:24
I fell for D. Good question. +1 for that.

Looked up ManGMAT and found Ron's reply -
Quote:
The key word is CRITICISM: you're looking for something that's WRONG with the argument. The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)
Intern
Status: "You never fail until you stop trying." ~Albert Einstein~
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 31
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 7

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2010, 10:57
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
-Correct-If the restaurant was perfectly ok with lingering customers then one or many may wait around for hours for their fav celeb to come wondering in. One can argue that high stools and table may not be a good idea because regular paying customers would bring in the more profit than those.. umm possible fanatics who would be encouraged by the availability of high tables.

(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 a great general statement but it doesn't really prove that profit would be affected by replacing seating with high tables and stool - out

(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.
-Note the strong language ALL customers would be interested in such seating-The argument mentions that replacing some of the seating but.. enough to only see other tall tables? - (I was thinking of a scenario arguing with a person and bringing up option (E) to my defense. He/she would reply nuh uh I didn't say that I wanted to replace that many tables and chair you egghead I said SOME some =])
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 147
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 1

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2010, 10:07
i choose d
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 227
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 20

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2010, 09:32
I think the trick in this question is in the instructions to the question: "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" ---> this is not the standard 'weaken' scenario, one where we are told that the answers are all true and it is the argument that is suspect.

Here it uses "reason to believe" ---> the conclusion is weak as it gives "reason to believe" that..... and it becomes a "must be true" type question... C is the only one that meets that test...
Manager
Status: I am Midnight's Child !
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 147
WE 1: Software Design and Development
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 11

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2010, 10:01
@11MBA and others :

E looks to be good too.

From E, we know that the customers interested in viewing celebrities can see only other tall tables. Here, they are two possibilities- One, celebrity sits on tall table and two,celebrity sits on standard ones. In the former case, celebrities themselves will leave early and hence no fodder for that segment to come. So Profits reduce!. In the latter case, the celebrities sit in standard tables and are not viewable by anyone. Hence, the profits reduce!

11MBA wrote:
At first I was btw choosing D and E. But after reading the explanations, I see why C is the best.

D. States that people who sit there for a shorter amount of time have a cheaper tab than people who sit for longer. This doesn't necessarily undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion, because the higher turnover can still result in a larger total revenue. For example, if people who stay for an avg of 30mins order $10 of food per person and people who stay for 1hr order 15 dollars of food, then in 1hr the total revenue in the first scenario would be 20 and in the second only 15. And the argument assumes that there will be higher turnover after all the tables are converted to tall tables. E. States that if all the tables were tall tables then the view would be ruined. The question states that taller tables offer a better view of the celebrities. It does NOT say that the taller table offers a better view of the celebrities because the celebrities are sitting at lower tables or because the tall tables are spaced far enough apart to get a good view of the celebrities. Therefore, answer E doesn't undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion. Someone pointed out that the increase in tall tables would take away the height advantage. This is an assumption on the part of the reader! The question merely states that tall tables afford a better view of celebrities, period. It doesn't say how it offers a better view of the celebrities. C is the best because the owner plans to increase revenues by drawing people in with universally good views of celebs from the tall tables, which also discourage lingering. Basically he will attract more people who will spend less time eating. However, if they do linger then his profits won't be higher than before when he had the standard height tables, which typically made people stay longer than the tall tables. He won't be able to achieve the higher turnover rate he was looking for. That's my 2cents. Keep in mind this question asks for the best answer, which in this case is C. _________________ Argument : If you love long trips, you love the GMAT. Conclusion : GMAT is long journey. What does the author assume ? Assumption : A long journey is a long trip. GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Director Joined: 21 Dec 2009 Posts: 591 Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance Followers: 18 Kudos [?]: 629 [0], given: 20 Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink] ### Show Tags 28 Dec 2010, 11:14 A toughie no doubt about that. The question is actually from GMATPrep2 Q27 and OA is C. _________________ KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you. Intern Joined: 28 Apr 2009 Posts: 5 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1 Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] ### Show Tags 22 Dec 2011, 10:51 tennis_ball 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. Senior Manager Joined: 08 Jun 2010 Posts: 397 Location: United States Concentration: General Management, Finance GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 13 Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink] ### Show Tags 23 Dec 2011, 01:41 A fantastic question! 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. So, what is the argument? 1) Replace normal seats with stools and increase profit. Why? a) diners prefers stools for better view b) diners come to see celebs c) NOTE: Also stool diners dont stay as long as standard height table diners(perhaps because of arching leg pains ) The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that STEM: Which of the following if true weakens type. I saw somebody mention that it's a MUST BE TRUE type, but I disagree because the main "part of the stem" asks us why the argument is vulnerbale to criticisim. And all the answer choices are not in the stimulus or rather external information (A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. So, this strengthens the argument. (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. Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. Because if the celebs stay longer, people will want to view them longer and price of meals is already compensated for by their lingering. (C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? A big fat NO. This is because majority of the folks will linger rather than sit on the stool and order food. So, this weakens the argument. (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 I found this choice the most difficult to eliminate. I was stuck between C and D for a very long time. ~ 4mins and then chose D. Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Actually this statement means to say that if we have more stools, revenue will go down because people will order less expensive meals. Turnover xTime at meal x$/meal =  (Revenue). BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION HERE. IF you can have more turnover because stools -> shorter time at table, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT INCREASING # OF STOOLS MAY HELP. SO, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY!!! SO, REJECT THIS CHOICE.

(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.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Well Yes and No. It doesn't really address the question at all. So, IRRELEVANT.
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 186
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 6

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 00:41
So we have to counter the argument for what can be best way to maximize profit at Hollywood restaurant.
If we break the statement
There is no mention of revenue sharing between celebrity and no celebrity client.
No mention of amount being spend in restaurant and time spend in restaurant.
Now from the question we can figure out that argument is based on maximizing profit from non celebrity client .
A ) There is no base of this statement.
B ) we are talking about celebrity behavior so this cant be the answer
C ) potential as it remains in the zone of question plus it counters the argument, so yes it’s a possible answer.
D ) No this cant be as we have no idea about the relation between time and order .
E ) This cant counter the argument so cant be
Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 133
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 12

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2012, 18:07
I chose D as well. Can someone explain?
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 85
Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 15

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2012, 01:20
D. E is wrong since it does not link the option to the profits in the conclusion. D precisely does that.
Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 83
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 42

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2012, 11:22
after reading all the explanations i'm still not convinced with the OA.
C talks about the concept of lingering.. i have found no mention of this concept anywhere in the passage.
"Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables"
does this sentence imply that diners who are staying long are actually lingering ? i think not. so with this we can straight eliminate B and C

lets understand what the question is asking
"The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that"
question wants us to find an inference to the passage which is prone to criticism

lets look at main points of the passage
-if hollywood rest. replaced its standard size seats with taller ones , its profits would increase.
how would they increase?
- more customers.(because of better view of celebs)
and
-customers would stay for shorter time
"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."

what this means is -- short stay = increased profits
D can be partially inferred from this above equality, and this inference is prone to criticism because there is no direct correlation between time of stay and cost of meal.

i agree even D is not a very appealing choice but at least it comes close.
C would have been undoubted answer had the passage been more explicit about the concept of lingering.
Manager
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 148
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2012, 13:35
+1 D
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 189
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2012, 07:12
tennis_ball wrote:
sorry to disappoint most of you guys:

aurobindo is right. OA is C.

But if you can see this type of question in GMAT, you are probably closing in on 49 in verbal.

no OE, so deduce your own explanation.

argument asks wether switch to tall tables and stool will generate profit or not?

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

if customer who sits on tall table are not interested in watching celebs i.e. to linger then replacement with tall table is not be profitable.
and thus it will call into question a plan to switch.

_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 21

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2012, 08:18
Firstly, please change the weaken tag to inference. Don't go by the words 'vulnerable to criticism' rather pay attention to 'gives reasons to believe'. So what the question is really asking is that you take into consideration the assumption(s), draw an inference and then decide why it really is a weak argument. And since the question really spells it out for you - 'reason' and not reasons you can simply attack the assumption.

Let's go old school on this question. Remember old school approach may be old, but it's the the grand daddy and can help you out with the toughest of questions. Just be patient.

[b]How to attempt any question on any exam.
Steps - ( OS steps )
1. Look at the question and tell yourself that the questions is an easy question.
2. Let's do this.
3. Be calm.

How to attempt a CR question-
1. Repeat OS steps
3. Draw a chart.
4. Eliminate the wrong choices.
5. Apply negation test if applicable - Check
6. Move on - with confidence.[/b]

The question.

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.

BREAK APART THE ARGUMENT in Conclusion and Evidence and guess the Argument.

E - HRest has only stand-ht tables.
E - Many cust watch celebs ---> would prefer tall tables ( also implied some don't come to watch celebs)
E - diners on tall tables leave early

Assumption - GUESS THE ASSUMPTION here

C - tall tables -----> profit

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.
we are not bothered about celebs sitting, only about them being viewed - ELIMINATE
(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. nowhere mentioned or implied - ELIMINATE
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering - The only thing left.
(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 - nowhere mentioned - however if this is true then good that the guys who order cheap leave early, this doesn't make the argument vulnerable - ELIMINATE
(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. some don't come to view celebs so simply - ELIMINATE
_________________

all you need is a will.

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 24 Dec 2012, 08:18

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 61 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard 2 05 Oct 2015, 21:49
8 At present the Hollywood Restaurant has 6 10 Nov 2014, 15:47
55 At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height 18 14 Sep 2012, 23:50
At present the hollywood restaurant has only standard-height 10 04 May 2008, 18:25
At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard 29 28 May 2007, 06:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by