It is currently 19 Sep 2017, 08:17

### 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

VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1161

Kudos [?]: 182 [18], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 22:16
18
KUDOS
88
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

24% (01:29) correct 76% (02:11) wrong based on 4650 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 182 [18], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 93 [42], given: 6

Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2009, 18:11
42
KUDOS
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Kudos [?]: 93 [42], given: 6

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 172 [19], given: 28

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

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 14:52
19
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
As with all arguments, I like to first start by reading the question and then breaking down the argument into conclusion and premises. First the question:

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

Alright so I know now that I will be dealing with weaknesses in the argument. So I will keep that in mind as I break it down.

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

Conclusion: Replace seating and profits will go up

Premise: People go to restaurant to see celebs
Premise: People want tall tables and seats to see the celebs
Premise: Diners on stools don't stay as long

Alright so there is the argument. Not a lot there to support the idea that profits will go up expect for the fact that there might be a faster turn over of tables. But there are a lot of assumptions here:

1. tall stools and tables won't deter people from spending as much as they did with normal tables
2. People actually want to see celebs and not eat food
3. Celebs will continue to come even if it easier for people to see them at the taller tables
...

Now it is time to look at the answer choices and see what makes the argument vulnerable. We need to look for reasons for why profits might not increase.

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

Well, this is not a problem. This is just more support for having taller tables. The celebs will come to sit at the tall tables making it easier for people to see them. This is not a criticism. Eliminate.

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

This too focused on the celebrities. The argument and the restaurant does not base its profits on how much celebs spend. Profits are based on all the other people coming to the restaurant. This is too narrowly focused so eliminate.

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

This gets at one of the assumptions I had. If someone sits at a tall table, will they stay longer or leave faster. Here we have a possible example, or a question, about what these customers are like. The argument assumed that people at the Hollywood would leave quickly when at a tall table, like at other restaurants. But what if having a tall table means you can see the celebs. This might be a reason to stay. And thus there would not be a fast turn over. People might stay longer because they have a good view of a celeb whereas before, without a good view, people would just eat and leave. This looks like the answer.

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

This is also close to what I was saying in the assumptions. But the problem is that this does not necessarily weaken the argument. People who stay less time order less expensive food which might cut into the profits. But if you have more people coming in to eat, and you can sit more people during your business hours, then ordering less expensive food won't be a problem. So this might be a problem, but not necessarily. Answer choice (C) would necessarily weaken the argument and cut into profits always. So this answer is not as good as D. But is a good tempting choice.

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

This might also be a problem, but the argument doesn't say that they are going to jam tables into the restaurant. There is no mention of adding more seating. They are merely going to replace tables that they have. So this is outside the scope of the argument and wrong.

I hope that I was able to shed some light on this question.
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 172 [19], given: 28

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 349

Kudos [?]: 115 [7], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2012, 23:50
7
KUDOS
30
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 [?]: 115 [7], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 81

Kudos [?]: 261 [7], given: 13

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

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 03:39
7
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Arbitrageur wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

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

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

I also picked D initially, but when iterated again though the options, i found C to be a contender for the reasons below:
So C,D,E are in race for the answer.

I rejected E on the grounds because it mentions enough tall tables ,where as conclusion talks about some of the tables being replaced with taller ones.

D. a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer. If this option were true it will definitely weakens the conclusion.

Premise: Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

The combination of option D and this premise implies that people spend more time on std. tables and also pay more for their food.

----------------------------------------xxxxx-----------------------------------

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

generalization about lingering---> people on std. table lingers over their food more then people sitting on stools.

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

Kudos [?]: 261 [7], given: 13

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 744

Kudos [?]: 196 [6], given: 0

Location: Dallas, Texas

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 23:45
6
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I see it now ... it's about profit and generalization says shorter table= more time spent on meal = more profit
High stool = less time spent = less costy quick meal = less profit

Should be C.
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Kudos [?]: 196 [6], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 727

Kudos [?]: 94 [4], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 07:35
4
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Kudos [?]: 94 [4], given: 4

VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1161

Kudos [?]: 182 [4], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2006, 01:30
4
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 182 [4], given: 0

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 136

Kudos [?]: 70 [2], given: 11

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

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

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

A and B are straight out as they discuss about the celebrities coming for dinner.

I find E somewhat irrelevant to the argument at hand.

D- This is a pretty general statement regarding people staying at the tables longer and ordering expensive food.
no where does it bring out the difference between standard height and tall tables.

C- Bingo! The general trend what people follow is that they come to holly wood only to watch celebrities and just linger on ;
they plan to replace standard height with tall tables so that they can increase their profits, but what if people are just lingering ?
How will that increase the profits?

Am I right with my understanding?
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Kudos [?]: 70 [2], given: 11

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 113 [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

Kudos [?]: 113 [2], given: 0

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 1808 [2], given: 229

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

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2014, 13:15
2
KUDOS
a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

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

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

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

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

Kudos [?]: 1808 [2], given: 229

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1088

Kudos [?]: 1122 [2], given: 29

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

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2015, 01:18
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Folks, there's an easy way to tell that this is not an Assumption question. The correct answer is something that is BAD for the argument. If it were an Assumption question, the correct answer would be helpful to the argument, and would flip to a weaken when negated.

If the point is that this is an assumption-based question, in other words that it requires us to understand a missing element of the argument, then that is of course true, but that is true of ALL Strengthen, Weaken, and Evaluate Q's. If an argument didn't have any missing pieces (assumptions), then there would be no need to strengthen, weaken, or evaluate. The argument would be perfect as is.

Another clue here is that the particular piece were asked to look for is something that the argument gives us "reason to believe." The question is letting us know that the argument contains the seeds of its own downfall! If folks want high tables to look at celebrities, who's to say they are going to rush back out? This is a common GMAT pattern, in which one element of an argument disrupts or negates another part.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1122 [2], given: 29

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 926

Kudos [?]: 1321 [2], given: 362

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, 09:48
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Vyshak wrote:
Hi GMATNinja / souvik101990

Isnt' this a weaken question? C seems to strengthen the conclusion rather than to weaken it.

1. Currently there are standard height tables and customers prefer tall tables.
2. Time spent by a customer who sits on stool < Time spent by a customer who uses standard tables

Conclusion: Replace some existing tables with tall tables and stools --> Increase profits

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> Since exception is used here, doesn't it mean that a customer who chooses to sit at a tall table doesn't spend much time lingering? If this is the case then the turnover will be more and will lead to increased profits. Is my understanding wrong here?

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!
_________________

www.gmatninja.com + GMAT blog + food blog + I'm really bad at PMs

Want expert SC and CR explanations? Check out our verbal Question of the Day! All of them are available here.

Verbal Experts' Topics of the Week:
All Topics of the Week | Ultimate RC Guide for Beginners | Ultimate CR Guide for Beginners | Ultimate SC Guide for Beginners | 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 | How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC | 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?

YouTube verbal webinars: "Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT

Kudos [?]: 1321 [2], given: 362

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 744

Kudos [?]: 196 [1], given: 0

Location: Dallas, Texas

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 23:16
1
KUDOS
Whatelse can it be except E ? If you raise the height by same amount for all people, the sit at the same level and none has any height advantage or better view.
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Kudos [?]: 196 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 917

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 07:16
1
KUDOS
I went for D also. The conclusion of the argument: "Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
" indicates this is about profits not really about whether customers can see celebs

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 4 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 07:20
1
KUDOS
I think it is E

Kudos [?]: 4 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 917

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 09:11
1
KUDOS
Swagatalakshmi wrote:
I see it now ... it's about profit and generalization says shorter table= more time spent on meal = more profit
High stool = less time spent = less costy quick meal = less profit

Should be C.

Aren't you making an assumption about the price of the meal of a person standing vs. sitting? nothing in this statement C suggests that because high stool people spend less time, they also spend less money.

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 198 [1], given: 3

Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Re: Tough CR: Hollywood Restaurant from GMATPrep [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2009, 18:55
1
KUDOS
Tough one for sure E looked perfect.
_________________

Rock On

Kudos [?]: 198 [1], given: 3

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 601

Kudos [?]: 507 [1], given: 16

Location: India
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/regularcourse.php

Free Online Coaching
Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 507 [1], given: 16

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4271

Kudos [?]: 7574 [1], given: 360

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
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

Kudos [?]: 7574 [1], given: 360

Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height   [#permalink] 29 Dec 2012, 09:47

Go to page    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 90 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Bob's Cafe, a busy restaurant, has decided to stop serving 44 16 Sep 2013, 04:45
2 1) At present Satellex Radio provides only music stations. 10 26 Feb 2016, 14:08
7 Situation : For five years the Souper restaurant chain has 12 09 Sep 2017, 22:37
4 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 6 06 Nov 2015, 22:25
14 Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard 16 09 Jul 2016, 00:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.