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

 It is currently 29 May 2017, 19:54

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

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

Customized
for You

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

Track

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

Practice
Pays

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

# Events & Promotions

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

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 481
Location: India
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 15

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

### Show Tags

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
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1381
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 178

Kudos [?]: 1466 [0], given: 62

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

### Show Tags

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.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 481
Location: India
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 427 [1] , given: 15

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 21:38
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

Classroom and Online Coaching

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 117
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 109 [2] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 23:53
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

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3863
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 825

Kudos [?]: 6347 [1] , given: 324

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

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2012, 09:47
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.
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2012
Posts: 10
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
GPA: 3.88
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 30 Apr 2011
Posts: 49
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 481
Location: India
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 427 [0], given: 15

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

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..
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 336
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 196

Kudos [?]: 384 [1] , given: 4

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

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2013, 15:03
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

Senior Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 259
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 401

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

### Show Tags

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!

Hope it helps! This one was really hard!
_________________

Think outside the box

Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 157
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 84

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

### Show Tags

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 348
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 403

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

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2014, 11:14
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

Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 22
Schools: HEC Montreal '16
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2014, 04:04
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,
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

29 May 2014, 02:33

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).
Current Student
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 7
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: Tuck '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Analyst (Consumer Products)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2014, 16:22
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.

Got this question in a Mock today, had to answer it in 50 sec and picked D. But still now, with time, it seems very complicated. REading your explanation it appears to me that you almost had to go beyond the scope to answer it. I would say that C, D or E would be an acceptable correct choice in many average level questions.
Senior Manager
Status: Math is psycho-logical
Joined: 07 Apr 2014
Posts: 441
Location: Netherlands
GMAT Date: 02-11-2015
WE: Psychology and Counseling (Other)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 169

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

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2014, 07:33
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering

What this means is that, the assumption that "everyone that chooses to sit in a high stool is not there to stay long" is made. But, there is always a chance that someone might sit on a high stool and stay for longer. That it at least one assumption of C.

Also, what I thought after reading C was that, if people that sit in the hogh stools stay for less time, then there is more turnaround. So, this might be better, because everyone that comes has one drink, but it is not 100% sure that when someone is there for lobger he would have more than one drinks. So, turnaround might be good for those that want to look at the celebs and tweet about it because they do not have to take the GMAT any time soon..!
Current Student
Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Posts: 71
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.27
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

27 May 2015, 00:10
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.

IMO, OA could be C because all others dont negate the conclusion....But the fact is C itself does not give any information which might negate the conclusion.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10297
Followers: 1001

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2016, 01:51
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 18 Jun 2016, 01:51

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 62 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard 2 10 Jan 2016, 13:03
6 Situation : For five years the Souper restaurant chain has 11 03 May 2017, 23:13
4 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 6 06 Nov 2015, 22:25
70 At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height 14 06 Oct 2015, 11:01
9 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 16 09 Jul 2016, 00:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by