Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm

D seems best here
E is too extreme to be an answer

this is not entirely true!!
in fact the conclusion that u have marked is not actually the conclusion of the argument
the fact is : Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions:
the conclusion is that such focus often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.
now the problem with E is that it becomes too extreme to explain this argument :the fact that such focus comes at the expense of attention to delicious food does not mean that these two sets are mutually exclusive

but I think you didn't pay attention that the first part of the argument is a set of facts and a minor general judgement at the part of "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence." however, these parts have general perspective. and the reasoning in this part is quite sound.

but the last line is where the the main judgement of the Restauranteur comes into light with "When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors" that is a conditional reasoning.. and whenever we have conditional reasoning the assumption always always defends the necessary condition.

for identifying the real conclusion you can add "since" at the beginning of the premise and "therefore" at the beginning of the conclusion. if it makes sense then you can be sure that the conclusion is the real one.
if we implement this technique to your comments it will be:
since "Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions" therefore "such focus often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence". which does not make sense, but consider the following reasoning:

since "Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence", therefore "When I hear of such restaurant, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors".

or if we make a mere change in the order of the facts it would make better sense:

since the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence is to offer delicious food and since Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions, therefore When I hear of such restaurant, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

but I agree that your explanation about choice E is also true.

hope it helps.

Hi,
Why is option C wrong?
The conclusion says, 'When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.'
If we use the negation test here, and negate option C, we get that the Restaurateur offered the foods in question. If he also offered such foods, how can he easily eliminate that restaurant from his list of potential customers. It is quite easy to assume that the Restaurateur didn't offer these items and that's why he was very optimistic in eliminating these restaurants from his list of potential customers.
But in option (d), we have to assume that 'lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax' is actually a'fancified menu description.' Though, on hearing, it seems to be a very fancy term, assuming such a fact isn't wrong for GMAT??
Please if anybody could elaborate on this doubt..
Thanks in advance.

Sukant2010 for assumption question you must exactly know the function that assumption plays in the argument. negation test is not always helpful. there are assumption question in which negation test for two options breaks the argument. remember negation test breaks even infer option! and in choice c we have an infer answer. it is under the categorization of must be true but it is not an assumption!

C can be the correct choice for an infer question not an assumption.

a correct answer for an assumption question has three specification:
1- it must be true
2- contain new info
3- support the conclusion

and an assumption can play two roles:
1- supporter (fill the gaps between premise and conclusion) ;similar to what we have in option D
2- defender (defend the conclusion) ( which if you think option C can be assumption it should play the role of defender, but does it defend the conclusion in any way??)

Does option "C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question." in any way helps to support the conclusion "When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors."?? to justify this option you have to create as extra assumption saying that "If he also offered such foods, how can he easily eliminate that restaurant from his list of potential customers." I mean you make an extra link (in addition to option C itself) to justify the assumption.

hope it helps

Can somebody help me with the conclusion for this argument??


Thanks in advance.

Still dont get why E is incorrect. Can anyone help here?

Thanks

Try to negate the statement and see if the conclusion is shattered

Sent from my MI 3W using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Mike sir!

How we eliminate (E)

And how we know "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence" is an argument of this question?

"I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors." also looks good for me as an argument.

If so, (E) could be assumption here.


Am I wrong?

mikemcgarry

Dear bluetrain,

I'm happy to respond.

For the purposes of a GMAT CR argument, we have to assume that the premises are true. In real life, we get to question people's premises, but in the cookbook world of the GMAT CR, we simply have to assume that the premises are completely factual. In this argument, this is the premise:
Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.
We need to accept that at face value.

Choice (E) is extreme. Consider the negation test: suppose one could focus on both food and decor, and do a mediocre job at both. It could be the case that one is focusing on both of these, but the restaurant still isn't good. We can negate this and it's still possible the argument would work.

Also, it's good to develop an ear for extreme language. The phrase "mutually exclusive" is a very strong phrase: it means that wherever P appears, there's no trace of Q, and vice verse. Few things in the real world are 100% mutually exclusive. When you see extreme language, you should get suspicious, because a choice with extreme language is almost never correct on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

E cites only one of the conditions mentioned in the premise. For a restaurant to have lost focus on the food, all three conditions - décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions - need to be met.

It seems the first premise "Focus on non-food items (i.e. fancy names) takes focus off food." is not necessary/can be omitted in the argument structure.
Namely below claims/facts themselves can make the argument.

Assumption: Restaurants that focus on fancy names aren't successful competitors.
This restaurant has a fancy name.
The restaurant will not be a successful competitor.

Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence. When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax,” for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the restaurateur’s argument?

(A) The food item mentioned is unlikely to be delicious. -We don't know anything about the taste of the food item.
(B) A restaurant offering such food is probably expensive. -The argument doesn't mean that the fancy restaurants are expensive, instead it specifies that such restaurants might not have delicious food.
(C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question. -Out of scope
(D) A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor. -Correct. As per the premise, such fancy restaurants often neglect the quality of food. This can result in removal of their name from the competitors list.
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive. -Out of scope

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

Solution: D

Always beware any Strengthen or Assumption questions that feature a new term in the conclusion: a term that has not been introduced in any of the premises supporting that conclusion. In this case, how can we conclude that a restaurant with pretentious food titles is not necessarily a competitor – no premises have mentioned anything about these restaurants’ ability to compete. (In fact, if Los Angeles is any indication, they do remarkably well.) We need an answer choice connecting fancy-schmancy names to poor performance in competition, so (D) is the best option.

Using the Assumption Negation Technique can be quite helpful on this question, also. The opposite of D is "A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is LIKELY to prove a successful competitor". This goes directly counter to the author's conclusion, proving that the assumption as written in choice D is essential to the argument.

VeritasKarishma
Hi Karishma,

Why is A wrong here? argument says that "focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions (e.g. lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax): a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food"

so can't we say that restaurateur cross this restaurant of the list because he assumes that this very food will not be delicious because this restaurant has fancy menu names?

Isn't D repeating what is already written in the argument?

I see, many people are going for option E. However, if we analyse, Restaurateur only crosses those fancy restaurants... this might be based on possibility rather than the certainty of providing non-satisfactory food. Therefore, saying focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive will be too extreme - argument can be true even if these are not mutually exclusive. Thus, option E is incorrect.

In option D, rather going too extreme to say mutually exclusive, "unlikely" word is used for similar situation. Thus, option D is correct

Whether that one dish is delicious or not doesn't matter to our argument. That dish name is given only as an example and that too to say that a restaurant having such names on the menu is unlikely to focus on the taste of the food. And assuming that a restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor, the restauranteur plans to remove it from his competitor list.

I think you are not clear about assumption questions. The correct answer links two things for which the link is not given already, but the two things may have been mentioned. So it may seem that it is repeating what the premise said but that is not true.

Here is a little about assumptions:

An assumption is a missing necessary premise.

An assumption is a premise – it gives you some new fact/information.

It is also necessary – necessary for the conclusion to be true. The conclusion cannot be true if the assumption doesn’t hold. Assumption Negation Technique is based on this premise.

To add, it is also missing – it is not something already mentioned in the argument.

Let’s take a very simplistic example to understand the implication of a missing necessary premise.


Argument: A implies B. B implies C. Hence, A implies D.

Premises given in the argument:
– A implies B
– B implies C

Conclusion given in the argument:
– A implies D


Is it apparent that something is missing here? Sure! The premises give us the relations between A, B and C. They do not mention D. But while drawing the conclusion, we are concluding about the relation between A and D. We can’t do that. We must know something about D too to be able to conclude a relation between A and D. Hence, there is a necessary premise that is missing here. What we are looking for is something that says ‘C implies D’.

When we add this to our premises, our argument makes sense.

Argument: A implies B. B implies C. C implies D. Hence, A implies D.

In our original question, the conclusion talks about the competitors but the premises give no information about them. Option (D) links the argument to competitors.