It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 00:33

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

7 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 81
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 :)

2 KUDOS received
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 137
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 !

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 185
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

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

Expert Post
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 549
Location: India
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2012, 23:05
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.


The real trick in answering this question as with many other questions is to fully understand what the question means. The key words in the question are: "gives reason to believe that it is likely that". That means that the passage should suggest what is mentioned in the choices. Let us see the choices now:

Choice A: The passage doesn't suggest anything about celebrities wanting to be seen
Choice B: The passage doesn't suggest anything about meals ordered by the celebrities
Choice C: The passage is mainly concerned with the Hollywood Restaurant's customers. We can get a sense of what C says without even fully understanding the choice because if the basis on which the author suggests is only an exception, then it could not support the author's view. So let us give it a closer look. Consider the statement: "they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities." The statement undermines the author's assumption about tall stools that the customer's who sit on tall stools do not linger long, because the statement gives reason to believe that if the customers have a better view of the celebrities they are in fact likely to linger longer.
Choice D: The passage doesn't suggest anything on the basis of cost of the meals even though it may be true.
Choice E: The passage doesn't suggest anything what this choice says even though it may be true
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1381
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2012, 20:48
Hii Sri.
Can you please elaborate on the meaning of C? I know that by POE, we could have easily done this one, but still what C intends to say. May be because doing hard CR questions doesn't gels with my brain.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 549
Location: India
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2012, 21:38
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Marcab wrote:
Hii Sri.
Can you please elaborate on the meaning of C? I know that by POE, we could have easily done this one, but still what C intends to say. May be because doing hard CR questions doesn't gels with my brain.


Dear Marcab,

The author says that customers prefer tall stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. But if that were true, customers would actually linger long as they get a better view of celebrities.

Thus the authors own statement gives reason to believe the above and contradicts the statement that the customers who sit on tall stools do not linger long.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Dec 2012, 23:53
2
This post received
KUDOS
It is a quite unusual question, but I did pick C. The key, as other people have noted, is paying attention to exactly what the question is asking. I figured it out this way: First of all, it is not a Weaken question but a Flaw question; it is asking for an answer that shows why the argument is "vulnerable to criticism" - in other words, an answer that describes something that is wrong with the argument. (When I teach, I tell students that if they mis-identify a Weaken question as a Flaw question or vice versa, it will almost NEVER harm them. This one might be an exception.) But then this question gets a lot more specific than the usual flaw question, because it wants us to identify a flaw which the argument ITSELF actually "gives reason to believe" is "likely". So this isn't just a typical "missing assumption" kind of flaw: Some of the alleged evidence in the argument must actually serve as evidence of a flaw.

Because they have worded the question this way, they can make our life especially hard by providing wrong answers which actually do describe flaws in the argument, but NOT the flaw which the argument contains a specific piece of evidence for. This argument is crawling with flaws, and in fact each of the four wrong answers is a flaw under some or all possible conditions. Only C, however, describes a flaw which follows from part of the evidence. One part of the evidence says that diners on tall stools IN GENERAL leave sooner; another part gives good reason to expect that diners on tall stools AT THE HOLLYWOOD will not. This contradiction then makes it impossible to support the conclusion -- even if we were to buy into the missing assumption (another flaw) that profits go up if diners leave sooner.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3972
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2012, 09:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
This topic cannot be handled except by POE, The argument is that the Restaurant will make more profits, if they installed more number of taller stools. Any choice, to be the right answer, should touch upon this critical mission.

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. --- But still this choice is not related to making profits at all.

(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. --- no relevance to tall tables

(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 generalization about lingering is the these tall-table sitters do not stay long enough. But Hollywood being a place of celebrities, might tempt customers spend longer time at the table and there is no guarantee that they will order expensive meal, because their focus is to glance their idols. Hence this will be an anti-climax to the thinking of the argument think of

(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 – not related to tables

(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 reference to profits.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2012
Posts: 10
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
GPA: 3.88
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2013, 05:35
2 things.
1. We need to accept the premise, as is, unless it's proven that there is some statistical problem with the data in premise.

P1 : tall tables would offer a better view of the celebrities.
P2 : Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

In P2, author leaves a gap open to attack the argument by writing "typically". If we show some data that shows an exception that that could weaken the argument.

Answer choice C states that exception.
Regarding D, again author says typically a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer. This means it may not be the case always. Also, restaurant can attract higher volume of customer than earlier, then this strategy can still work.

Regarding E, we need to accept the premise P1 as is and thus, we need to assume that tall table will offer the better view.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2011
Posts: 48
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2013, 18:25
C for me
I think the difficulty lies in the complex wording in the question stem:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

What it actually asks is as simple as "the author's assumption".
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 1
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Dec 2013, 08:47
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.



It is c, all other option does not talk about profit. D is all about sitting it could be tall stool or normal one
Expert Post
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 549
Location: India
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Dec 2013, 06:39
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.


Is this a GMAT question?

I retract what I said in my earlier posts after a closer reading of the question.

If you read the question carefully you will see that there is no other group other than the following group that is mentioned with regard to lingering : "many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood,". So I do not understand how choice C can be correct as there is no group mentioned which can be taken as the exception to the generalization because all of the above group who come to see celebrities prefer to sit at a tall table and those who sit at a tall table spend less time dining.

So the argument definitely does not give reason to believe that the hollywood customers would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Classroom and Online Coaching

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 10
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2013, 12:24
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

one query i neglected this choice as "sit at tall table" diners sit on stools not on table.. is dere any typo in options..
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 335
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Dec 2013, 15:03
1
This post received
KUDOS
HI Rahul,

This is actually correct English.

You:
sit 'at' a table
but
sit 'on' a stool

'Sit at a table' is sort of like saying you're sat beside the table to eat.

Hope that helps

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0



... and more

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 256
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2013, 09:10
Hi all,

i think a majority of you understood that we need to find something that is profit-related.

C and D are the two choices. I chose D but I was wrong.

First, as a non native speaker "lingering" was not familiar to me. The definition is "doing nothing or to process slowly" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lingering)

Now that you know that, look at D. In D says that you may have less orders. But if you have 10 orders at €100 and shift to 50 orders at €50, your profit went up from €1000 to €2500! therefore D is out!

C is the best answer.

Hope it helps! This one was really hard!
_________________

Think outside the box

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 157
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2014, 00:21
OA- D

I dont understand why they stress on C. Lingering makes no sense with increase or decrease profits unless explicitly stated.

Thanks
_________________

Thanks for Posting

LEARN TO ANALYSE

+1 kudos if you like

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 73
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Thanks in advance!
2 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 961
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2014, 13:15
2
This post received
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.

Generalization about lingering :
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".

Expert Post
18 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2014, 14:52
18
This post received
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

Image

Image

Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard   [#permalink] 04 Apr 2014, 14:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 87 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
#Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard Shawshank 0 21 Jun 2017, 08:07
6 Situation : For five years the Souper restaurant chain has Marcab 11 03 May 2017, 23:13
4 Experts publish their posts in the topic Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard elegan 6 06 Nov 2015, 22:25
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height Shawshank 0 06 Oct 2015, 11:01
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard betterscore 16 09 Jul 2016, 00:38
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 and phpBB SEO

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®.