It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 11:58

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

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 431

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

Show Tags

13 Jun 2007, 08:28
jenizaros wrote:
Caas wrote:
I hope you don't mind if I post the OA as author doesn't seem to care

OA is C guys.

I checked it in another source.

Caas,
Since you posted answer of the question, you owe us an explication. Could you explain us why it is C ?

Ok wil try.

The argument's conclusion: we must buy and use some high stools.
Support for the conclusion: many customers come to watch celebrities --> buy high stools! BUT dinners don't like to stay long time on the high stools ---> buy only some high stools (don't substitute all of the standard stools with high ones).
The conclusion as I see it now is about using both types of stools.
Here we go.
We have watchers on high stools from one side and dinners on standard stools on the other side. Watchers watch and eat little. Dinners eat much and don't like high stools. High stools, in whatever quantity, will not attract dinners to the restaurant, because dinners like lingering!
What is more profitable? Of course dinners, not watchers.
Why in this case should we use high stools at all?

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that:

A,B and E out
C - generalization is that dinners like lingering. Restaurant serves dinners. Dinners bring money to the restaurant. Watchers will be an exception to this normal behavior of lingering. They don't stay long in the restaurant. Hence, they don't like lingering. Why should we reserve place for them?
D - argument does not give us reason to belive that they order less expensive food

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

VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1437

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Schools: Chicago Booth '11

Show Tags

13 Jun 2007, 09:26
The misspelling of "generatlisation" along with dinners? hurts the credibility of this question for me unless it was a typo from the poster.

but I would go with E

I cant see how C is right, where in this statement does it define what generalizations about lingering is ???

how would we know from this question what a generalization about lingering is?

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

13 Jun 2007, 09:45
msrinath wrote:
At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard height tables. However, many customers come to watch celebrities who frequent Hollywood & they prefer tall tables in stools because such seating would afford better view of the celebrities. However, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating with higher tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that: (Basically asking about the assumption of the argument and not the criticism to the plan)
(a) Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
(b) The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
(c) A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering
(Correctly expresses the assumption that tall table likers will be the exception to the generalisation about lingering (means fast customer rotation will be there)
(d) A restaurant's customer who spends less time at their meal typically orders less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(e) With enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood restaurant's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 498

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

13 Jun 2007, 10:19
Let me try this Q

Fact:
- Dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables
Conclusion:
- If the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating with higher tables and stools, its profits would increase

Therefore the assumption is- People should come sit on the high stools eat and go and that would fetch more profits because more number of dinners can be served as dinners don't sit for long.

Now lets look at the options
A - Eliminate - It does not weaken the conclusion.
B - Eliminate - No evidence.
D - Eliminate - Q does not talk about less and more expensive meals.
E - Eliminate - Q does not talk about the view.

C - Seems correct - It says the every customer for hollywood would be in a rush... or exception to lingering.

Pl. let me know if it makes sense.

Hence C should be the answer.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

13 Jun 2007, 11:50
What is the source of this question?

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 2

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

Show Tags

20 Jun 2007, 09:08
baer wrote:
What is the source of this question?

GMAT Prep

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

Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 2

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

Show Tags

20 Jun 2007, 09:12
Answer C kind of makes sense to me now...the logic of it at least, but I still don't see how it ties into the conclusion of "if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase."

I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly the question is asking. To me it still sounds like a weaken the conclusion question, although others will argue that its more like an assumption question. Any takers?

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

Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 89

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

Show Tags

21 Jun 2007, 11:15
First of all, Sorry for the late. Regarding the source of the question I found this question in my friends notes. The OA given is C and the OE is not provided. This is my take on the question

There is no mention of price of food. So any arugument referring to price and meal expense has no effect on conclusion

A. Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
No effect on conclusion.

B. The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
No effect on conclusion.

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

Generalization is that people who come to eat spend more time on standard height table than on Tall stools, whereas people who come to watch celeberities would spend more time on tall stool not on std height tables..this behavior is exception to the normal behavior
I think C is better because the reason people come to the restaurant is that they may want to watch the celebrities and preferably longer. But the last statement implies that they finish the dinner fast and hence the restaurant can potentially serve more people thus increasing the profit. This contrdicts with the reason given for the objective of the customers and hence subject to criticism

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
Lets assume a customer(who spends more time) stays for 3 hrs and spent 300 bucks. Now consider the scenario in which another customer(who spends less time) stays for half an hour.. and spent 100 bucks.... since he ordered a dish thats less expensive...so if the restaurant is flooded with customers... 100*6 = 600 > 300..
The restaurant owner is at a profit..not loss..hence it shouldnt be D

E. with enough tall table to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of the tables
The question states if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating.So this option is out of question

.
Once again thanks everybody for the enthusiastic response and patient wait

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

Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 6

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

Show Tags

20 Jul 2007, 03:46
msrinath wrote:
First of all, Sorry for the late. Regarding the source of the question I found this question in my friends notes. The OA given is C and the OE is not provided. This is my take on the question

There is no mention of price of food. So any arugument referring to price and meal expense has no effect on conclusion

A. Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
No effect on conclusion.

B. The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
No effect on conclusion.

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

Generalization is that people who come to eat spend more time on standard height table than on Tall stools, whereas people who come to watch celeberities would spend more time on tall stool not on std height tables..this behavior is exception to the normal behavior
I think C is better because the reason people come to the restaurant is that they may want to watch the celebrities and preferably longer. But the last statement implies that they finish the dinner fast and hence the restaurant can potentially serve more people thus increasing the profit. This contrdicts with the reason given for the objective of the customers and hence subject to criticism

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
Lets assume a customer(who spends more time) stays for 3 hrs and spent 300 bucks. Now consider the scenario in which another customer(who spends less time) stays for half an hour.. and spent 100 bucks.... since he ordered a dish thats less expensive...so if the restaurant is flooded with customers... 100*6 = 600 > 300..
The restaurant owner is at a profit..not loss..hence it shouldnt be D

E. with enough tall table to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of the tables
The question states if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating.So this option is out of question

.
Once again thanks everybody for the enthusiastic response and patient wait

WOW!!! U ruled the roost here. Thank you for the explanation.

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

Director
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 734

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

20 Jul 2007, 05:47
(d) Stem gave us impression that might be the case even though the conclusion does not bring this factor into consideration. Our answer.
(e) Not really you can hire a designer to do whatever. I dont think this is related.

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: hollywood restaurant   [#permalink] 20 Jul 2007, 05:47

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by