It is currently 16 Jan 2018, 11:46

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 557 [0], given: 16

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

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2012, 22:05
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

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 557 [0], given: 16

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1375

Kudos [?]: 1748 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 19:48
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.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1748 [0], given: 62

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 557 [1], given: 16

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 20:38
1
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

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 557 [1], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 123 [2], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 22:53
2
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

Kudos [?]: 123 [2], given: 0

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4321

Kudos [?]: 8549 [1], given: 366

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2012, 08:47
1
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.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8549 [1], given: 366

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2012
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 5

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

17 Sep 2013, 04:35
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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 30 Apr 2011
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 29

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

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2013, 17:25
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".

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 29

Intern
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2013, 07:47
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

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

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 624

Kudos [?]: 557 [0], given: 16

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

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2013, 05:39
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

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 557 [0], given: 16

Intern
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2013, 11:24
(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..

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 333

Kudos [?]: 444 [1], given: 4

Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2013, 14:03
1
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

Kudos [?]: 444 [1], given: 4

Senior Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 250

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 401

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

30 Dec 2013, 08:10
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!

Hope it helps! This one was really hard!
_________________

Think outside the box

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 401

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 150

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 84

Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2014, 23:21
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

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 84

Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2014, 15:36
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.

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 11

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 952

Kudos [?]: 1968 [2], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 12:15
2
KUDOS
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

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

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

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

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

Kudos [?]: 1968 [2], given: 229

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 186 [21], given: 28

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

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 13:52
21
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
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

Kudos [?]: 186 [21], given: 28

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 339

Kudos [?]: 244 [0], given: 403

GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 10:14
If we read carefully we find a disconnect in the conclusion and the premise.

Agreed that those interested in watching the celebrities may use high stools.

The generlaisation assumes that the customer using the high stool will not linger and so leave early and so space will be available for more such customers .

But what if he continues to linger???

So C
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Kudos [?]: 244 [0], given: 403

Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 8

Schools: HEC Montreal '20
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2014, 03:04
though i went for d but c seems to be better as = tall stools= better view of celebrities = more time spent = purpose of stools to reduce time spent,

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 8

Intern
Joined: 22 May 2014
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

29 May 2014, 01:33

Increased profits will be had with more customers per hour.
Therefore, in order for tall stools to increase profits, we would need people who sit at tall stools to leave faster, which the author generalizes is the case.
However, the passage tells us that people who sit in tall stools do so in order to see the celebrities.
Therefore, we have reason to believe that they will be in the tall stools specifically in order to linger and watch the celebrities.
Therefore, we will not have more customers per hour in the tall-stool tables (in fact, we may very well have less).

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 9

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

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

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 04:36
Hi Kevin,

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

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

Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard   [#permalink] 07 Aug 2014, 04:36

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 96 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by