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!


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.
_________________

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.
_________________

A - Some. Avoid
Also we do not know about this class of celebrity (who come to be soon), hence, we cannot comment on them. This option cannot be basis of weakening the argument
B - States some unknown fact, not implied from the passage
D - Again states a fact not implied from the statement
E - Avoid as 'No' is an extreme word
I did not understand option C in the first instance. But I did not eliminate C because I was aware I was aware I had not comprehended it well (as I was unable to in a time constraint situation).
I had strong reasons to eliminate other answers, which helped me choose C.

Logically, you cannot claim an unknown fact unless stated in the argument. For instance, as in answer B, how do I know that dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time? It is not given, hence I will eliminate B.
Similarly in D, how do I know customers who spend less time at the meals typically spend on less expensive meal? Even if they do, the greater frequency might be able to compensate that.

Also note, the question itself has predictive tone, "It is likely that", hence I would look for answers that have predictive tone too - words like "might", "would", etc

Was stuck between C and D- what outed D for me was my reasoning that it is not necessary that a more expensive meal is more profitable than a meal cheaper than the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm new.

Doesn't the question say that profits "would" increase? It doesn't mention that it "will" increase. I had the conclusion that there is already a considered possibility that profits may or may not increase. Doesn't would indicate probability rather than actuality?