Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 29 May 2017, 11:13

### 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-height

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 348
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 111 [7] , given: 4

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2012, 23:50
7
KUDOS
29
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (02:07) correct 65% (01:27) wrong based on 1118 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 348
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 4

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 00:39
jitgoel wrote:
Arbitrageur 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

It looks from the Option 'D' that customers who sits on the tall table will order less expensive food. Is it mean that customers who sits on standard sixe table will order expensive? If this is the true than I suppose 'D' is right choise among all.
Option 'C' is just the opp of what the premise is. it says very few customers or may be exception who would like to sit on the tall table. however, the premise says customer prefer to sit on the tall table.

I picked D as well, but the OA is C. I'm pretty dumbfounded by this answer.
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 81
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 224 [7] , given: 13

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 03:39
7
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Arbitrageur 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--irrelevant
(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- irrelevant ,
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering--weakens, place it as contender.
(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--weakens,
(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--Weaken, place it as contender

I also picked D initially, but when iterated again though the options, i found C to be a contender for the reasons below:
So C,D,E are in race for the answer.

I rejected E on the grounds because it mentions enough tall tables ,where as conclusion talks about some of the tables being replaced with taller ones.

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. If this option were true it will definitely weakens the conclusion.

Premise: Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

The combination of option D and this premise implies that people spend more time on std. tables and also pay more for their food.

----------------------------------------xxxxx-----------------------------------

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 about lingering---> people on std. table lingers over their food more then people sitting on stools.

Now this definitely hurts the argument, since if EVERY CUSTOMER(who sits on tall table/stool) made this exception, it will difficult for the Hollywood to make room for new customers.

out of c and D , IMO C is better because we are not sure about amount of money, people sitting on std. tables will be paying higher than as compared to people on stools.Whereas, if the hotel gets clogged due to lingering guests, its business will definitely suffer to some extent.
This question is real tough one, i relied on my assumptions to reach the answer but an expert reply is much awaited.
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 67 [2] , given: 11

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2012, 04:00
2
KUDOS
Shawshank 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

A and B are straight out as they discuss about the celebrities coming for dinner.

I find E somewhat irrelevant to the argument at hand.

D- This is a pretty general statement regarding people staying at the tables longer and ordering expensive food.
no where does it bring out the difference between standard height and tall tables.

C- Bingo! The general trend what people follow is that they come to holly wood only to watch celebrities and just linger on ;
they plan to replace standard height with tall tables so that they can increase their profits, but what if people are just lingering ?
How will that increase the profits?

Am I right with my understanding?
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 71
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 11

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 16:36
Hi,
Could anyone please clear my doubt.
Option (c) says that with tall tables, the lingering will stop or people will start sitting on their tables, but nowhere it is written that they will start ordering and profits of the restaurant would increase.
Option (d) says that 'a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer'. It is explicitly written that 'diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables'. Hence, with stools, people will start ordering expensive meals and this actually talks about certain likelihood of increase in the profits of the restaurant.
If any expert could help me out of it.
Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 960
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 171

Kudos [?]: 1613 [2] , given: 229

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 13:15
2
KUDOS
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

Definition: Linger : To remain or stay on in a place longer than is usual or expected, as if from reluctance to leave.

Case 1. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at coffee shop with one coffee. We try to spend less money and try to spend more time bcz we just want to pass the time.
Case 2. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at some liquor lounge and try to gulp much before boarding gates to open. We try to spend more money and try to drink more, bcz we enjoy that.

Here Case 1 and Case 2 both are yielding opposite effect on profit, then exceptional customer to which Case we are considering.. bcz in one case he or she will profit the restaurant and in other case loss.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222
Followers: 64

Kudos [?]: 159 [18] , given: 28

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 14:52
18
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
As with all arguments, I like to first start by reading the question and then breaking down the argument into conclusion and premises. First the question:

Shawshank wrote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

Alright so I know now that I will be dealing with weaknesses in the argument. So I will keep that in mind as I break it down.

Shawshank 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.

Conclusion: Replace seating and profits will go up

Premise: People go to restaurant to see celebs
Premise: People want tall tables and seats to see the celebs
Premise: Diners on stools don't stay as long

Alright so there is the argument. Not a lot there to support the idea that profits will go up expect for the fact that there might be a faster turn over of tables. But there are a lot of assumptions here:

1. tall stools and tables won't deter people from spending as much as they did with normal tables
2. People actually want to see celebs and not eat food
3. Celebs will continue to come even if it easier for people to see them at the taller tables
...

Now it is time to look at the answer choices and see what makes the argument vulnerable. We need to look for reasons for why profits might not increase.

Shawshank wrote:
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available

Well, this is not a problem. This is just more support for having taller tables. The celebs will come to sit at the tall tables making it easier for people to see them. This is not a criticism. Eliminate.

Shawshank wrote:
(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

This too focused on the celebrities. The argument and the restaurant does not base its profits on how much celebs spend. Profits are based on all the other people coming to the restaurant. This is too narrowly focused so eliminate.

Shawshank wrote:
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

This gets at one of the assumptions I had. If someone sits at a tall table, will they stay longer or leave faster. Here we have a possible example, or a question, about what these customers are like. The argument assumed that people at the Hollywood would leave quickly when at a tall table, like at other restaurants. But what if having a tall table means you can see the celebs. This might be a reason to stay. And thus there would not be a fast turn over. People might stay longer because they have a good view of a celeb whereas before, without a good view, people would just eat and leave. This looks like the answer.

Shawshank wrote:
(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 also close to what I was saying in the assumptions. But the problem is that this does not necessarily weaken the argument. People who stay less time order less expensive food which might cut into the profits. But if you have more people coming in to eat, and you can sit more people during your business hours, then ordering less expensive food won't be a problem. So this might be a problem, but not necessarily. Answer choice (C) would necessarily weaken the argument and cut into profits always. So this answer is not as good as D. But is a good tempting choice.

Shawshank wrote:
(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

This might also be a problem, but the argument doesn't say that they are going to jam tables into the restaurant. There is no mention of adding more seating. They are merely going to replace tables that they have. So this is outside the scope of the argument and wrong.

I hope that I was able to shed some light on this question.
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 22

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 05:36
Hi Kevin,

I was of the idea that since the question says "... it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" it is an Assumption question. Therefore, D and E are also invalid because they are statements which, if true, would weaken the argument but we are not looking for such statements. Instead we are looking for assumptions that the argument makes. And one assumption, as you pointed out as well, is that those occupying tall tables would be an exception to the lingering generalization.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222
Followers: 64

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 28

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 09:27
tsatomic wrote:
Hi Kevin,

I was of the idea that since the question says "... it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" it is an Assumption question. Therefore, D and E are also invalid because they are statements which, if true, would weaken the argument but we are not looking for such statements. Instead we are looking for assumptions that the argument makes. And one assumption, as you pointed out as well, is that those occupying tall tables would be an exception to the lingering generalization.

Hi tsatomic, I understand the point that you are trying to make, but ultimately, this is a weakening question—not an assumption question. Look at the whole question stem:

Quote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

You can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 05-31-2024
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 22

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2014, 09:54
Quote:
can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D

Agreed. This is an assumption question. Not a weaken the argument question. We should all be aware that all Critical Reasoning questions can be broken down into three argument types: ascriptive arguments, descriptive arguments and prescriptive arguments. This is a prescriptive argument. A prescriptive argument will outline a problem and recommend a solution. The assumption in a prescription argument will always be "that the prescription works." So we need to find an answer choice that tells us that higher stools will not result in higher profits. Answer choice C does just that. If you have any reservations, use the negate test.
Intern
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Posts: 48
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.73
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 94

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2015, 14:14
Hi,

Where can I learn more about, what you've mentioned above.. the categorization etc.. have a hard time understanding what is expected in a question... SPECIALLY this one..

Thank you...
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1013
Followers: 344

Kudos [?]: 933 [2] , given: 28

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2015, 01:18
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Folks, there's an easy way to tell that this is not an Assumption question. The correct answer is something that is BAD for the argument. If it were an Assumption question, the correct answer would be helpful to the argument, and would flip to a weaken when negated.

If the point is that this is an assumption-based question, in other words that it requires us to understand a missing element of the argument, then that is of course true, but that is true of ALL Strengthen, Weaken, and Evaluate Q's. If an argument didn't have any missing pieces (assumptions), then there would be no need to strengthen, weaken, or evaluate. The argument would be perfect as is.

Another clue here is that the particular piece were asked to look for is something that the argument gives us "reason to believe." The question is letting us know that the argument contains the seeds of its own downfall! If folks want high tables to look at celebrities, who's to say they are going to rush back out? This is a common GMAT pattern, in which one element of an argument disrupts or negates another part.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Posts: 121
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 260

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2015, 00:51
Shawshank 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

A very nice and subtle question:

A fact from argument: many customer go to Hollywood Restaurant with the primary intention of seeing celebs

A generalization from argument: diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables

If tall tables with stools provide better view of celebs for customers who many of them go to Hollywood Restaurant to see the celebs, then this kind of seating (in the context of this question) may not necessarily lead to shorter dinning time, compared to an average customer in a restaurant. Since the motives of customers of Hollywood restaurant are different from motives of customer of other restaurants, the kind of seating mentioned might even produce opposite effects, i.e. longer dining time, which might reduce the profit.
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 186
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 65

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. H [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2015, 00:02
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.- No effect

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. - Doesn't impact the plan to install tall tables with stools

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

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.
The argument is comparing the benefit of having tall tables with stools over standard height tables. The argument assumes that more no of customer will come at restra, if they have tall tables with chairs. Even if customer who spends less time with less expensive meals can contribute to the restaurant in increasing profit. It, any way, supports the argument.

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.
No impact on profit.
VP
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1207
Location: India
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 717 [1] , given: 75

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. H [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2015, 11:01
1
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.
(it is not celebrities who sit at these tall tables but sutomers who come to see them. This makes no sense. OFS)

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.
(Price of meals ordered by celebrities does not matter to the 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.
(The author of the argument assumes that general customer at standard table linger for a long time to watch a glimpse of celebrity but the customer at tall table will not spend a large time as long as diners seated at standard-height tables even as they get to watch celebrities in a better view. this is flaw as the reverse can happen as they may get excited and spend more time more than general customer at std table who cannot have a better view.)

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.
(even if this is the case of long tables, if the more people visit the restaurant at the end of the day as they spend less time on the table resulting in profits according to the argument and this new info will not be a flaw in the existing argument.)

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.
(This results in absence of people at standard tables and will result in loss and this new info does not indicate the flaw in argument.)
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. H   [#permalink] 06 Oct 2015, 11:01
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard 2 10 Jan 2016, 13:03
6 Situation : For five years the Souper restaurant chain has 11 03 May 2017, 23:13
4 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 6 06 Nov 2015, 22:25
9 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 16 09 Jul 2016, 00:38
2 1) At present Satellex Radio provides only music stations. 10 26 Feb 2016, 14:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by