GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Oct 2018, 12:26

### 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

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1088
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 22:16
29
137
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

23% (02:11) correct 77% (02:20) wrong based on 5401 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 219
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 14:52
34
9
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

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 177
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2009, 18:11
50
15
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.
##### General Discussion
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 694
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 07:35
6
5
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

An exception. So there wont be increase in profits. So the answer is C.

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 actually stregthening the logic followed in the argument. So D can't be the answer.

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

Argument does not say that all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating are going to be accomodated. So E can't be the answer.
Intern
Status: "You never fail until you stop trying." ~Albert Einstein~
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 25
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2010, 10:57
1
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
-Correct-If the restaurant was perfectly ok with lingering customers then one or many may wait around for hours for their fav celeb to come wondering in. One can argue that high stools and table may not be a good idea because regular paying customers would bring in the more profit than those.. umm possible fanatics who would be encouraged by the availability of high tables.

(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
-This is a great general statement but it doesn't really prove that profit would be affected by replacing seating with high tables and stool - out

(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.
-Note the strong language ALL customers would be interested in such seating-The argument mentions that replacing some of the seating but.. enough to only see other tall tables? - (I was thinking of a scenario arguing with a person and bringing up option (E) to my defense. He/she would reply nuh uh I didn't say that I wanted to replace that many tables and chair you egghead I said SOME some =])
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 318
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2011, 01:41
1
1
A fantastic question!

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

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

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

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

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

(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Well Yes and No. It doesn't really address the question at all. So, IRRELEVANT.
Manager
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 68
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

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

lets look at main points of the passage
-if hollywood rest. replaced its standard size seats with taller ones , its profits would increase.
how would they increase?
- more customers.(because of better view of celebs)
and
-customers would stay for shorter time
"Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase."

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

i agree even D is not a very appealing choice but at least it comes close.
C would have been undoubted answer had the passage been more explicit about the concept of lingering.
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 71
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 03:39
7
1
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.

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

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 111
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

17 Sep 2012, 04:00
2
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
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 102
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 23:53
4
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: 4479
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2012, 09:47
2
1
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.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2012
Posts: 8
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, 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.
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 629
Location: India
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 Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 197
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, 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

Director
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 796
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, 13:15
2
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".

Intern
Joined: 23 May 2014
Posts: 10
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).
Intern
Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 9
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 05:36
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.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 219
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 09:27
tsatomic wrote:
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.

Hi tsatomic, I understand the point that you are trying to make, but ultimately, this is a weakening question—not an assumption question. Look at the whole question stem:

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

You can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Posts: 11
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 05-31-2024
Re: #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2014, 09:54
Quote:
can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D

Agreed. This is an assumption question. Not a weaken the argument question. We should all be aware that all Critical Reasoning questions can be broken down into three argument types: ascriptive arguments, descriptive arguments and prescriptive arguments. This is a prescriptive argument. A prescriptive argument will outline a problem and recommend a solution. The assumption in a prescription argument will always be "that the prescription works." So we need to find an answer choice that tells us that higher stools will not result in higher profits. Answer choice C does just that. If you have any reservations, use the negate test.
Senior Manager
Status: Math is psycho-logical
Joined: 07 Apr 2014
Posts: 422
Location: Netherlands
GMAT Date: 02-11-2015
WE: Psychology and Counseling (Other)
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..!
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height &nbs [#permalink] 31 Dec 2014, 07:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by