GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Jul 2018, 14:27

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1289
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2015, 01:18
2
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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 173
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1165
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2015, 11:01
1
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
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265

Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1165
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2015, 10:49
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.

However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they prefer tall tables with stools for 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..........profits wont increase since diners will sit for the same amount of time as earlier.

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................whether celebrities linger for a long time or not does not affect the argument since fans may or may not linger and thus profits may or may not arise.

C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
It is given in the argument that
Quote:
diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
but this argument assumes that this diner on stool represents a customer of Hollywood and he will not stay for long even if he came to his favorite celebrity.

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 they order less priced item still this may or may not result in profits. this does not indicate flaw

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...........whether there is a view of other or standard tables does not explain flaw in the argument as it does not affect the argument in any way.
_________________

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
https://gmatclub.com/forum/improve-reading-habit-233410.html#p1802265

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 607
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2016, 08:17
1
A super easy question

ANSWER IS C



Remember CR is all about knowing the rules - what and when info can be brought in, decoding the language, and catching the subtle linguistic nuances premise after premise.

Premise 1) Customer want to see celebrities and doing that is easier if customer has tall tables
Premise 2) Tall tables are also not suitable to sit for longer period. So GENERALLY customer don't LINGER AROUND and leave as soon as they finish their order
Conclusion)Hollywood Restaurant should change SOME of their short tables into Tall tables to increase profit

WEAKEN :- IT IS USUALLY TRUE THAT CUSTOMER DONT LIKE TO LINGER AROUND IN THE RESTAURANT IF THEY ARE ON TALL TABLE BUT WHAT IF THEY ARE READY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION HOPING THAT TALL TABLE WILL INCREASE THIER CHANCES TO SEE A CELEBRITY . THEN TALL TABLE WILL MAKE CUSTOMER STAY FOR A LONGER TIME PERIOD AND THESE CUSTOMERS WILL UNNECESSARY BLOCK TABLE AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS WILL NOT BE SERVED. MEANING LOSS

(C) A customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
MEANING ANY CUSTOMER WHO WOULD SIT ON TALL TABLE IN HOLLYWOOD RESTAURANT IS A CRAZY, STALKER, STARRY EYED, CELEBRITY OBSESSED FOOL AND WILL NOT LEAVE THE RESTAURANT JUST HOPING AND HOPING THAT HE WOULD SEE A CELEBRITY ANYTIME SOON. AND THUS HIS BEHAVIOUR WILL AFFECT SALES AND PROFIT OF HOLLYWOOD RESTAURANT. (I WENT OVER THE TOP BECAUSE AT TIMES CR CAN BE TOO TAXING ON BRAIN AND A LITTLE SMILE GOES A LONG WAY TO SOOTHE THE NERVES :-D :-D :-D )

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

SC Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1712
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 4
WE: Analyst (Retail)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2017, 00:16
Hi GMATNinja / souvik101990

Isnt' this a weaken question? C seems to strengthen the conclusion rather than to weaken it.

1. Currently there are standard height tables and customers prefer tall tables.
2. Time spent by a customer who sits on stool < Time spent by a customer who uses standard tables

Conclusion: Replace some existing tables with tall tables and stools --> Increase profits

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> Since exception is used here, doesn't it mean that a customer who chooses to sit at a tall table doesn't spend much time lingering? If this is the case then the turnover will be more and will lead to increased profits. Is my understanding wrong here?

Can you please explain why C is the right answer choice?
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1830
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jun 2017, 09:48
2
1
Vyshak wrote:
Hi GMATNinja / souvik101990

Isnt' this a weaken question? C seems to strengthen the conclusion rather than to weaken it.

1. Currently there are standard height tables and customers prefer tall tables.
2. Time spent by a customer who sits on stool < Time spent by a customer who uses standard tables

Conclusion: Replace some existing tables with tall tables and stools --> Increase profits

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> Since exception is used here, doesn't it mean that a customer who chooses to sit at a tall table doesn't spend much time lingering? If this is the case then the turnover will be more and will lead to increased profits. Is my understanding wrong here?

Can you please explain why C is the right answer choice?


Ah, I think I see the error here.

This is the "generalization" described in (C):
Quote:
Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

I think you might have flipped this around, Vyshak. The passage says that diners on stools (tall tables) typically don't stay as long -- so there would be faster turnover, and higher profits for the restaurant.

But in (C), that "generalization" (that people do NOT stay as long at tall tables) doesn't hold at Hollywood. In other words, (C) is saying that people might linger longer at Hollywood on the tall tables. And that makes the argument fall apart.

I hope this helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1830
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 21:33
We spent a good chunk of last Wednesday’s verbal chat session talking about this particular question, so I figure that we might as well post the explanation here… in case we haven’t thoroughly exhausted this question already!

This is a twisted version of a “weaken” question, and that means that we must have a conclusion in here somewhere. And the conclusion is clearly stated at the end of the passage: "Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase."

So how did the author arrive at that conclusion? It’s funny, the passage isn’t really explicit in connecting the evidence to the conclusion. The supporting evidence is this:

    1) "customers... would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities."
    2) "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables."

Hm, I kind of wanted something better than that, to be honest. I guess we’re left to assume that this evidence would lead to higher profits because more customers would be attracted to the restaurant to watch celebrities, and because the diners wouldn’t stay as long, so the restaurant could serve more people. But the passage isn’t explicit about this. And that’s part of what makes the question so tricky: the connection between the evidence and the conclusion is left partly to the reader’s imagination.

And the question is funky, too. "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." So yes, this is a “weaken” question, sort of. But there’s more to it than that. The argument "gives reason to believe" that something is likely -- and the "something" would weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits. Tricky!

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

First, the passage does not "give us reason to believe" that (A) would be true. Plus, I don’t know why it would undermine profitability. (A) is gone.

Quote:
(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.

There are plenty of reasons why (B) is wrong. The passage does not "give us reason to believe" that this would be true, for starters. Plus, I don’t really see how this would undermine the conclusion. I don’t think that the spending by celebrities is the main issue here – or the main source of revenue for the restaurant. And if you think it is, then this would actually strengthen the argument a little bit. (B) is out.

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

Hm, yeah -- the passage definitely gives us reason to believe that this is likely. After all, the passage indicates that celebrity-watching is the reason why customers come to the restaurant. And if (C) is true, then the restaurant wouldn’t "turn tables" quickly, and profits would be hurt. Keep (C).

Quote:
(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 might be a little bit tempting, because (D) makes it sound like it would harm profits. But remember the exact phrasing of the question! The correct answer "gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." And there’s no reason why this would be likely based on the passage. Plus, it’s not clear that the effects of ordering cheaper meals would necessarily offset the effects of shorter dining times. (D) is out.

Quote:
(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.

Again, we have no reason to think that this is likely, and the impact on profits is a little bit murky, too. For (E) to be correct, we’d have to assume that this actually chases customers away somehow, and that isn’t clear.

So (E) can be eliminated, and (C) is the best answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 9
CAT Tests
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2017, 12:46
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

option d. says customer who spend less time order less expensive meals. which will reduce the revenue and profit eventually. instead, we use the standard high tables customers spend more time and the profit might not increase bu won't decrease as it occurs in the 1 st case. so why not option D.


option c says "a customer ", the mentality of one customer or very few cases. how does this weaken the argument more than option d does.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1830
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2017, 08:54
1
shahul. wrote:
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

option d. says customer who spend less time order less expensive meals. which will reduce the revenue and profit eventually. instead, we use the standard high tables customers spend more time and the profit might not increase bu won't decrease as it occurs in the 1 st case. so why not option D.

option c says "a customer ", the mentality of one customer or very few cases. how does this weaken the argument more than option d does.

Quote:
(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 we could be sure that customers who spend less time at the restaurant order less expensive meals, we would not know whether that would offset the benefit of increasing the flow of customers. For example, if you get two customers per hour at a stool seat and one customer per hour at a regular seat, that would only cause a decrease in revenue if the stool customers order meals that are less than half the cost of the meals ordered by customers at regular seats.

More importantly, as described in this explanation, the passage does NOT give us any reason to believe that stool customers will order less expensive meals. The passage only suggests that those diners will stay for a shorter amount of time.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 249
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Nov 2017, 15:11
tennis_ball 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.


Excuse me. This question seeme\s to be the lucky exception for hard question with easy answer.
The main assumption the owner makes: Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
So, it will be more people, that will stay not as long as people at regular tables ----> more profit.

Ok. The only option that gives us it is C.
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
Such customer will not lingerm he will go away fast --> he will be the exception to generalization about lingering.

If he does not spend less time, the conclusion about higher profiits will break down.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 284
CAT Tests
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2017, 19:14
1
giuliab3 wrote:
tennis_ball 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.



Does answer C mean that tall table customers would not linger?
Thanks!

The passage says that "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables". This is the generalization about lingering. But the passage also implies that the customers of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at tall tables would do so to have a better view of the celebrities. So that gives us some reason to believe that those Hollywood customers might be an exception to the general rule (i.e. they might want to stay longer to watch the celebrities). This would probably hurt profits (fewer customers per hour would probably mean lower sales per hour).

This explanation might also help.
_________________

www.gmatninja.com

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height &nbs [#permalink] 29 Dec 2017, 19:14

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.