It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 05:41

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2010, 07:37
Really tough one, thanks for the explanation guys. I understand now why C it is.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 11

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Keep fighting!
Affiliations: IIT Madras
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 220

Kudos [?]: 540 [0], given: 104

WE 1: 2+ years - Programming
WE 2: 3+ years - Product developement,
WE 3: 2+ years - Program management
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Oct 2010, 17:24
I fell for D. Good question. +1 for that.

Looked up ManGMAT and found Ron's reply -
Quote:
The key word is CRITICISM: you're looking for something that's WRONG with the argument. The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)

Kudos [?]: 540 [0], given: 104

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: "You never fail until you stop trying." ~Albert Einstein~
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 7

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Dec 2010, 10:57
(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-If the restaurant was perfectly ok with lingering customers then one or many may wait around for hours for their fav celeb to come wondering in. One can argue that high stools and table may not be a good idea because regular paying customers would bring in the more profit than those.. umm possible fanatics who would be encouraged by the availability of high tables.

(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 a great general statement but it doesn't really prove that profit would be affected by replacing seating with high tables and stool - out

(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.
-Note the strong language ALL customers would be interested in such seating-The argument mentions that replacing some of the seating but.. enough to only see other tall tables? - (I was thinking of a scenario arguing with a person and bringing up option (E) to my defense. He/she would reply nuh uh I didn't say that I wanted to replace that many tables and chair you egghead I said SOME some =])

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 1

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2010, 10:07
i choose d

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 223

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Dec 2010, 09:32
I think the trick in this question is in the instructions to the question: "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" ---> this is not the standard 'weaken' scenario, one where we are told that the answers are all true and it is the argument that is suspect.

Here it uses "reason to believe" ---> the conclusion is weak as it gives "reason to believe" that..... and it becomes a "must be true" type question... C is the only one that meets that test...

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 20

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: I am Midnight's Child !
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 140

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 11

WE 1: Software Design and Development
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2010, 10:01
@11MBA and others :

E looks to be good too.

From E, we know that the customers interested in viewing celebrities can see only other tall tables. Here, they are two possibilities- One, celebrity sits on tall table and two,celebrity sits on standard ones. In the former case, celebrities themselves will leave early and hence no fodder for that segment to come. So Profits reduce!. In the latter case, the celebrities sit in standard tables and are not viewable by anyone. Hence, the profits reduce!



11MBA wrote:
At first I was btw choosing D and E. But after reading the explanations, I see why C is the best.

D. States that people who sit there for a shorter amount of time have a cheaper tab than people who sit for longer. This doesn't necessarily undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion, because the higher turnover can still result in a larger total revenue. For example, if people who stay for an avg of 30mins order $10 of food per person and people who stay for 1hr order 15 dollars of food, then in 1hr the total revenue in the first scenario would be 20 and in the second only 15. And the argument assumes that there will be higher turnover after all the tables are converted to tall tables.

E. States that if all the tables were tall tables then the view would be ruined. The question states that taller tables offer a better view of the celebrities. It does NOT say that the taller table offers a better view of the celebrities because the celebrities are sitting at lower tables or because the tall tables are spaced far enough apart to get a good view of the celebrities. Therefore, answer E doesn't undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion. Someone pointed out that the increase in tall tables would take away the height advantage. This is an assumption on the part of the reader! The question merely states that tall tables afford a better view of celebrities, period. It doesn't say how it offers a better view of the celebrities.

C is the best because the owner plans to increase revenues by drawing people in with universally good views of celebs from the tall tables, which also discourage lingering. Basically he will attract more people who will spend less time eating. However, if they do linger then his profits won't be higher than before when he had the standard height tables, which typically made people stay longer than the tall tables. He won't be able to achieve the higher turnover rate he was looking for.

That's my 2cents. Keep in mind this question asks for the best answer, which in this case is C.

_________________

Argument : If you love long trips, you love the GMAT.
Conclusion : GMAT is long journey.

What does the author assume ?
Assumption : A long journey is a long trip.


GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 11

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 582

Kudos [?]: 841 [0], given: 20

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2010, 11:14
A toughie no doubt about that. The question is actually from GMATPrep2 Q27 and OA is C.
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Kudos [?]: 841 [0], given: 20

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2011, 10:51
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.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 387

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Dec 2011, 01:41
A fantastic question!

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.

So, what is the argument?
1) Replace normal seats with stools and increase profit. Why?
a) diners prefers stools for better view
b) diners come to see celebs
c) NOTE: Also stool diners dont stay as long as standard height table diners(perhaps because of arching leg pains
)

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

STEM: Which of the following if true weakens type. I saw somebody mention that it's a MUST BE TRUE type, but I disagree because the main "part of the stem" asks us why the argument is vulnerbale to criticisim. And all the answer choices are not in the stimulus or rather external information

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. So, this strengthens the argument.
(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.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. Because if the celebs stay longer, people will want to view them longer and price of meals is already compensated for by their lingering.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? A big fat NO. This is because majority of the folks will linger rather than sit on the stool and order food. So, this weakens the argument.
(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
I found this choice the most difficult to eliminate. I was stuck between C and D for a very long time. ~ 4mins and then chose D. :evil:
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Actually this statement means to say that if we have more stools, revenue will go down because people will order less expensive meals. Turnover xTime at meal x $/meal = $$ (Revenue). BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION HERE. IF you can have more turnover because stools -> shorter time at table, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT INCREASING # OF STOOLS MAY HELP. SO, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY!!! SO, REJECT THIS CHOICE.

(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 this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Well Yes and No. It doesn't really address the question at all. So, IRRELEVANT.

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, International Business
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2011, 00:41
So we have to counter the argument for what can be best way to maximize profit at Hollywood restaurant.
If we break the statement
There is no mention of revenue sharing between celebrity and no celebrity client.
No mention of amount being spend in restaurant and time spend in restaurant.
Now from the question we can figure out that argument is based on maximizing profit from non celebrity client .
A ) There is no base of this statement.
B ) we are talking about celebrity behavior so this cant be the answer
C ) potential as it remains in the zone of question plus it counters the argument, so yes it’s a possible answer.
D ) No this cant be as we have no idea about the relation between time and order .
E ) This cant counter the argument so cant be

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 127

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 12

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

Show Tags

New post 07 Jan 2012, 18:07
I chose D as well. Can someone explain?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 12

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Sep 2010
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Schools: HBS, LBS, Wharton, Kelloggs, Booth
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2012, 01:20
D. E is wrong since it does not link the option to the profits in the conclusion. D precisely does that.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 15

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 80

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 42

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

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2012, 11:22
after reading all the explanations i'm still not convinced with the OA.
C talks about the concept of lingering.. i have found no mention of this concept anywhere in the passage.
"Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables"
does this sentence imply that diners who are staying long are actually lingering ? i think not. so with this we can straight eliminate B and C

lets understand what the question is asking
"The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that"
question wants us to find an inference to the passage which is prone to criticism

lets look at main points of the passage
-if hollywood rest. replaced its standard size seats with taller ones , its profits would increase.
how would they increase?
- more customers.(because of better view of celebs)
and
-customers would stay for shorter time
if u read this statement
"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."

what this means is -- short stay = increased profits
D can be partially inferred from this above equality, and this inference is prone to criticism because there is no direct correlation between time of stay and cost of meal.

i agree even D is not a very appealing choice but at least it comes close.
C would have been undoubted answer had the passage been more explicit about the concept of lingering.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 42

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 27 Jan 2012, 13:35
+1 D

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

7 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 350

Kudos [?]: 117 [7], given: 4

#Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2012, 23:50
7
This post received
KUDOS
30
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 117 [7], given: 4

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 350

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 4

Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 4

7 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 78

Kudos [?]: 276 [7], given: 13

Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2012, 03:39
7
This post received
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.
exception about this generalization would be, if a guy lingers more while sitting on stool/tall table

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 :)

Kudos [?]: 276 [7], given: 13

2 KUDOS received
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 135

Kudos [?]: 74 [2], given: 11

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2012, 04:00
2
This post received
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 !

Kudos [?]: 74 [2], given: 11

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2012, 07:12
tennis_ball wrote:
sorry to disappoint most of you guys:

aurobindo is right. OA is C.

But if you can see this type of question in GMAT, you are probably closing in on 49 in verbal.

no OE, so deduce your own explanation.


argument asks wether switch to tall tables and stool will generate profit or not?

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

if customer who sits on tall table are not interested in watching celebs i.e. to linger then replacement with tall table is not be profitable.
and thus it will call into question a plan to switch.



If answer helps then please press kudos
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 21

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

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2012, 08:18
Firstly, please change the weaken tag to inference. Don't go by the words 'vulnerable to criticism' rather pay attention to 'gives reasons to believe'. So what the question is really asking is that you take into consideration the assumption(s), draw an inference and then decide why it really is a weak argument. And since the question really spells it out for you - 'reason' and not reasons you can simply attack the assumption.

Let's go old school on this question. Remember old school approach may be old, but it's the the grand daddy and can help you out with the toughest of questions. Just be patient.

[b]How to attempt any question on any exam.
Steps - ( OS steps )
1. Look at the question and tell yourself that the questions is an easy question.
2. Let's do this.
3. Be calm.

How to attempt a CR question-
1. Repeat OS steps
2. Read the question, understand the what is being asked.
3. Draw a chart.
4. Eliminate the wrong choices.
5. Apply negation test if applicable - Check
6. Move on - with confidence.[/b]


The question.

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.

BREAK APART THE ARGUMENT in Conclusion and Evidence and guess the Argument.

E - HRest has only stand-ht tables.
E - Many cust watch celebs ---> would prefer tall tables ( also implied some don't come to watch celebs)
E - diners on tall tables leave early

Assumption - GUESS THE ASSUMPTION here

C - tall tables -----> profit


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.
we are not bothered about celebs sitting, only about them being viewed - ELIMINATE
(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. nowhere mentioned or implied - ELIMINATE
(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 only thing left.
(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 - nowhere mentioned - however if this is true then good that the guys who order cheap leave early, this doesn't make the argument vulnerable - ELIMINATE
(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. some don't come to view celebs so simply - ELIMINATE
_________________

all you need is a will.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 21

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 24 Dec 2012, 08:18

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 93 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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.