I remember well that OA is C but I never understood this q completely… So I’ve tried to examine it closer (at last).
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_________?
What is asked? To find an assumption
and show what will happen if this assumption is not true
. (a sort of ‘weaken’ question)
Let’s have a look at argument structure:
Premise 1: many Hollywood customers like to watch the celebrities and thus like high stools
Premise 2: dinners at high stools usually took less time (overall, but we don’t know whether it will be true for Hollywood!)
Assumption: dinners at high stools at Hollywood
will take less time (i.e., the general rule will apply in this particular case)
Intermediate conclusion: less time per customer means increased customers rotation and thus higher profits (again, overall. Whether it will be true for Hollywood, depends on assumption above)
Conclusion: if we replace some of usual stools with high stools, Hollywood profits will increase
So, the negation of argument’s assumption would mean something like:
‘people at high stools in Hollywood will spend at least as much time at their dinners as people at usual ones’ – i.e., the general rule stated in Premise 2 won’t be true for the particular case. In such a situation, replacing the usual stools will high ones won’t bring any additional profit.
Now, time to check the answers:
A) some celebrities come to the hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available (says nothing about profits increase)
B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the hollywood compensates for the longer itme, if any, they spend lingering over their meals (says nothing about profits increase since potential profits from customers aren't mentioned)
C) a customer of the hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering (yes, it is the only answer choice that negates the assumption – namely, C says that the general rule stated in Premise 2 won’t be true in the case of Hollywood)
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 (argument does not deny this possibility, but it implies that this lose could be compensated by the increased number of customers)
E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all of the hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables (who cares what they will really see if there’s enough profit?)