It is currently 19 Jan 2018, 21:00

### 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

SC Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1539

Kudos [?]: 1294 [0], given: 911

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 09:38
Thanks GMATNinja . I did not notice that the 'generalization' in option C refers to 'diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables'. I was just taking the common meaning of 'lingering' here.

P.S: Just 23% correct responses out of nearly 4000 attempts. Must be one of the toughest CR questions

Kudos [?]: 1294 [0], given: 911

Board of Directors
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2998

Kudos [?]: 1064 [0], given: 74

Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, Technology
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 09:59
GMATNinja wrote:
Ah, I think I see the error here.

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

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

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

I hope this helps!

Thanks GMATNinja , I think this is a very tough question.

It made me think for 15 minutes. Although I know all the other options are incorrect, I was not convinced with C also.

I think this is a 800 level question. I need to practice such questions more to reach my target.
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

How to use this forum in THE BEST way?

Kudos [?]: 1064 [0], given: 74

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1351

Kudos [?]: 2296 [0], given: 501

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 11:06
abhimahna wrote:
Thanks GMATNinja , I think this is a very tough question.

Yeah, I agree! You have to be really precise to catch the relevance of (C) -- and then I think (D) is awfully tempting. Plenty of other wise experts have commented on that one, but it's not easy to eliminate at first glance. Tough stuff.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

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

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

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

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

"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 2296 [0], given: 501

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 10

Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2017, 04:07
C is the correct answer. Read carefully. D is actually weakening it.
We want to explain that if ppl leave early, it is due to the tall tables and stools. Hence they would not linger.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 10

Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2017
Posts: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2017, 05:47
Hi guys,
It confused me when approaching a similar question in OG 15, as lingering may not be a factor that increases revenue, therefore, B is gone. But the OA is actually B in this case. Do I miss something?

"Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tall tables and stools. The restaurant already fills every available seat during its operating hours, and the change in seating arrangements will not result in an increase in the restaurant???s seating capacity. Nonetheless, the restaurant???s management expects revenue to increase as a result of the seating change without any concurrent change in menu, prices, or operating hours.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best reason for the expectation?

(A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables.

(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.

(C) Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to

accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables.
(D) Few diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement.

(E) The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense"

OA is B

Last edited by tomboyclassic on 03 Jul 2017, 23:07, edited 1 time in total.

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

Manager
Joined: 27 Sep 2015
Posts: 120

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 23

Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2017, 22:55
Hello,

Can some expert please shed some light on this question.

Regards,
Anupama

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 23

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 624

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

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

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2017, 15:47
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 wif ould be no view except of other tall tables.

Let us first see what can be immediately dismissed as irrelevant. A and B are about celebrities and are irrelevant.
Between C, D and E, D is not correct because it cannot be directly see as making the argument vulnerable to it. Only if we were to assume it as true , it is a valid criticism. We are left between C and E. Now see: if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase." So, reading the argument closely, we see that the author is not talking about replacing all the standard height tables. Choice C makes a natural valid counter to the author's argument because if customers want to have a better view of celebrities they are likely to linger longer.
_________________

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

Standardized Approaches

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

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1351

Kudos [?]: 2296 [0], given: 501

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2017, 20:33
We spent a good chunk of last Wednesday’s verbal chat session talking about this particular question, so I figure that we might as well post the explanation here… in case we haven’t thoroughly exhausted this question already!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.

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

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

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

Quote:
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer.

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

Quote:
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

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

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

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

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

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

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

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

"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 2296 [0], given: 501

Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 51

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

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 11:46
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

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

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

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 51

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1351

Kudos [?]: 2296 [1], given: 501

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2017, 07:54
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
shahul. wrote:
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

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

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

Quote:
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer

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

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

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Friendly warning: I'm bad at PMs

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

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

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

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

"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses | Comparisons, part I |
November webinar schedule

Kudos [?]: 2296 [1], given: 501

Intern
Joined: 11 Aug 2016
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 44

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

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2017, 10:03
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: 44

Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 218

Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2017, 14:11
tennis_ball wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

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

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

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

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

If he does not spend less time, the conclusion about higher profiits will break down.

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 218

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1860

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 2406

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2017, 14:38
only B,C,D are left.
B talks about celebrities -> out
D actually strengthens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 179 [0], given: 2406

Intern
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 180

Location: Singapore
GMAT 1: 650 Q38 V37
GPA: 3.83
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2017, 00:20
tennis_ball wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

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

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

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

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 180

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 229

Kudos [?]: 122 [1], given: 57

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

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2017, 18:14
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
giuliab3 wrote:
tennis_ball wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

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

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

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

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

This explanation might also help.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 122 [1], given: 57

Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2017
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 65

Location: Spain
Schools: IMD '21
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V27
GPA: 2.9
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2017, 13:31
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
tennis_ball wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

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

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.

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.

It is indeed an official question from GMATprep exam2.
Cheers

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 65

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 30 Dec 2017, 13:31

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by