Joined: 01 May 2012
 , given: 0
V02-24 what do you think? [#permalink]
08 Jun 2012, 05:57
This post received
Verbal :: Critical reasoning :: V02-24
Flag for Review
Which of the following best completes the passage below?
Two popular local restaurants, The Cancan Club and Chez Shay, use two different systems of valet parking. At the Cancan Club, valet parking is both optional and complimentary, and there is some parking around the restaurant. At Chez Shay, however, customers must pay $10 per car for valet parking; though this service is optional, there is no parking within 3 blocks of the restaurant. Because the Chez Shay valet lot is the busier of the two, one can reasonably conclude that Chez Shay customers.
Are wealthier than customers at The Cancan Club
Also use valet parking when they dine at The Cancan Club
Are not deterred from dining at Chez Shay by the expense of valet parking
Prefer Chez Shay to The Cancan Club
Prefer valet parking to self-parking
This is from a random CAT question of the test.
However, I can't seem to agree with choice "C", which is the correct answer.
I chose E - and here's my reasoning
We know that this Chez Shay restaurant has bad parking - probably situated somewhere downtown, in a hotel, where nearby street parking spots are taken. Customers could of course, choose to park three blocks away from the dining spot - and quite frankly, I used to do that for a nice steakhouse in my city - I'd probably have to walk a bit more but I can find free parking three or four blocks away, saving probably $15 of flat-rate parking. So in my mind, if I choose the valet, which costs me something extra, I must decide that it's not worth my hassle to park some blocks away - and a little money solves my problem. In this case, I prefer valet to self-parking, which probably explains why my car is at the valet lot, contributing to its being busy. Were customers insisting upon saving that extra dollars, they'd not do the valet. As a result, the valet wouldn't be as popular.
On the other hand, if I were to conclude that "customers are not deterred from dining at CS by the expense of valet parking", I wouldn't be so sure. Clearly some customers are not deterred by the $10. But how do I know all customers are not deterred by the $10? IF there are 10 customers dining at the restaurant, 5 of which decide that it's too expensive to park (likely me, who likes to go in for a quick lunch that costs just $15, maybe), 5 decide that it's okay so the valet spot here has a traffic of 5, greater than the traffic at the other restaurant, 0. How can you say that "customers are not deterred by the expense of parking" when half the customers are indeed deterred by the parking?
An additional note:
Were I to change the question to the following : Because the Chez Shay valet lot is the busier of the two, one can reasonably conclude that SOME Chez Shay customers .........
Then both C and E are correct.
Were I to change the question to the following : Because the Chez Shay valet lot is the busier of the two, one can reasonably conclude that MANY or ALL Chez Shay customers .........
Then none of the questions are correct.
I'd say, this question is flawed. It probably gets a pass on GMAT. But it 'll never see the light of the day on LSAT.