|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[2] , given: 0
|
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]
 01 Dec 2006, 22:16
2
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
16% (02:24) correct
83% (01:34) wrong based on 11 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Sing/ HK
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I would go with D.
_________________
Impossible is nothing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Whatelse can it be except E ? If you raise the height by same amount for all people, the sit at the same level and none has any height advantage or better view.
_________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 718
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Swagatalakshmi wrote: Whatelse can it be except E ? If you raise the height by same amount for all people, the sit at the same level and none has any height advantage or better view.
I also answered E with the same reasoning but E is not the answer. I felt this one is tough too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 758
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
9
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
I see it now ... it's about profit and generalization says shorter table= more time spent on meal = more profit
High stool = less time spent = less costy quick meal = less profit
Should be C.
_________________
"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
D seems to fine...OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 440
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
D..
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 1563
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
63
[0], given: 34
|
ONE MORE VOTE FOR D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
34
[0], given: 0
|
I went for D also. The conclusion of the argument: "Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
" indicates this is about profits not really about whether customers can see celebs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 63
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I think it is E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 737
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
8
[1] , given: 4
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]
02 Dec 2006, 07:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
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
An exception. So there wont be increase in profits. So the answer is C.
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 actually stregthening the logic followed in the argument. So D can't be the answer.
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
Argument does not say that all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating are going to be accomodated. So E can't be the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 923
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
34
[0], given: 0
|
Swagatalakshmi wrote: I see it now ... it's about profit and generalization says shorter table= more time spent on meal = more profit
High stool = less time spent = less costy quick meal = less profit
Should be C.
Aren't you making an assumption about the price of the meal of a person standing vs. sitting? nothing in this statement C suggests that because high stool people spend less time, they also spend less money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 246
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
I am really lost on this one. Other than A and B, all the other 3 choices look probable to me.
I hope a question like this would appear in GMAT only after you have started scoring in the 760 range. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 502
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
one more for D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 70
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]
02 Dec 2006, 14:14
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.
D
_________________
------------------------------------------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 245
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Clear D, find a situation which causes profits to decrease: only if the pain of sitting on these butt paining stools will cause the patrons to order less and get the hell out of there
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1185
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[2] , given: 0
|
2
This post received
KUDOS
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 109
Location: United States
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 5
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]
11 Dec 2009, 09:58
If C is correct, how come the stimulus itself doesn't even mention the "lingering" generalization? "Lingering" first appears in choice B. Are we sure this GMAT question is even legitimate/reflective of the real exam?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 61
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]
11 Dec 2009, 12:21
I go with answer E. It seems more appropriate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 226
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
22
[4] , given: 6
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]
11 Dec 2009, 18:11
4
This post received
KUDOS
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep
[#permalink]
11 Dec 2009, 18:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
