At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 27 Feb 2017, 15:36

### 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: 1172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 150 [16] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 21:16
16
KUDOS
64
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

23% (02:31) correct 77% (02:16) wrong based on 3737 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
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 224
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [33] , given: 6

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

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2009, 17:11
33
KUDOS
8
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.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 151 [5] , given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 22:45
5
KUDOS
1
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."

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 81 [5] , given: 4

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 06:35
5
KUDOS
4
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.
VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1172
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 150 [4] , given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2006, 00:30
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.
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 119
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 107 [2] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 22:53
2
KUDOS
It is a quite unusual question, but I did pick C. The key, as other people have noted, is paying attention to exactly what the question is asking. I figured it out this way: First of all, it is not a Weaken question but a Flaw question; it is asking for an answer that shows why the argument is "vulnerable to criticism" - in other words, an answer that describes something that is wrong with the argument. (When I teach, I tell students that if they mis-identify a Weaken question as a Flaw question or vice versa, it will almost NEVER harm them. This one might be an exception.) But then this question gets a lot more specific than the usual flaw question, because it wants us to identify a flaw which the argument ITSELF actually "gives reason to believe" is "likely". So this isn't just a typical "missing assumption" kind of flaw: Some of the alleged evidence in the argument must actually serve as evidence of a flaw.

Because they have worded the question this way, they can make our life especially hard by providing wrong answers which actually do describe flaws in the argument, but NOT the flaw which the argument contains a specific piece of evidence for. This argument is crawling with flaws, and in fact each of the four wrong answers is a flaw under some or all possible conditions. Only C, however, describes a flaw which follows from part of the evidence. One part of the evidence says that diners on tall stools IN GENERAL leave sooner; another part gives good reason to expect that diners on tall stools AT THE HOLLYWOOD will not. This contradiction then makes it impossible to support the conclusion -- even if we were to buy into the missing assumption (another flaw) that profits go up if diners leave sooner.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 62
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 06:20
1
KUDOS
I think it is E
Manager
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 175
Location: Streamwood IL
Schools: Kellogg(Evening),Booth (Evening)
WE 1: 5 Years
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 178 [1] , given: 3

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

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2009, 17:55
1
KUDOS
Tough one for sure E looked perfect.
_________________

Rock On

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 447
Location: India
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 407 [1] , given: 14

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

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2012, 20:38
1
KUDOS
Marcab wrote:
Hii Sri.
Can you please elaborate on the meaning of C? I know that by POE, we could have easily done this one, but still what C intends to say. May be because doing hard CR questions doesn't gels with my brain.

Dear Marcab,

The author says that customers prefer tall stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities. But if that were true, customers would actually linger long as they get a better view of celebrities.

Thus the authors own statement gives reason to believe the above and contradicts the statement that the customers who sit on tall stools do not linger long.
_________________

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

Classroom and Online Coaching

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3705
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 736

Kudos [?]: 5755 [1] , given: 322

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

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2012, 08:47
1
KUDOS
This topic cannot be handled except by POE, The argument is that the Restaurant will make more profits, if they installed more number of taller stools. Any choice, to be the right answer, should touch upon this critical mission.

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. --- But still this choice is not related to making profits at all.

(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals. --- no relevance to tall tables

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --- The generalization about lingering is the these tall-table sitters do not stay long enough. But Hollywood being a place of celebrities, might tempt customers spend longer time at the table and there is no guarantee that they will order expensive meal, because their focus is to glance their idols. Hence this will be an anti-climax to the thinking of the argument think of

(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer – not related to tables

(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables. – No reference to profits.
_________________

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 192

Kudos [?]: 372 [1] , given: 4

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

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2013, 14:03
1
KUDOS
HI Rahul,

This is actually correct English.

You:
sit 'at' a table
but
sit 'on' a stool

'Sit at a table' is sort of like saying you're sat beside the table to eat.

Hope that helps

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 266
Location: Sing/ HK
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 21:33
I would go with D.
_________________

Impossible is nothing

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 22:16
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."

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 714
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2006, 22:35
Swagatalakshmi wrote:
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.

I also answered E with the same reasoning but E is not the answer. I felt this one is tough too.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 01:03
D seems to fine...OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 01:40
D..
SVP
Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 1744
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 49

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 03:34
ONE MORE VOTE FOR D
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 921
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 06:16
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
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 921
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 08:11
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.
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 242
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2006, 08:56
I am really lost on this one. Other than A and B, all the other 3 choices look probable to me.
I hope a question like this would appear in GMAT only after you have started scoring in the 760 range.
02 Dec 2006, 08:56

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

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 #Top150 CR: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard 2 05 Oct 2015, 20:49
9 At present the Hollywood Restaurant has 6 10 Nov 2014, 14:47
65 At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height 19 14 Sep 2012, 22:50
At present the hollywood restaurant has only standard-height 10 04 May 2008, 17:25
At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard 29 28 May 2007, 05:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by