We spent a good chunk of
last Wednesday’s verbal chat session talking about this particular question, so I figure that we might as well post the explanation here… in case we haven’t thoroughly exhausted this question already!
This is a twisted version of a “weaken” question, and that means that we must have a conclusion in here somewhere. And the conclusion is clearly stated at the end of the passage: "Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase."
So how did the author arrive at that conclusion? It’s funny, the passage isn’t really explicit in connecting the evidence to the conclusion. The supporting evidence is this:
1) "customers... would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities."
2) "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables."
Hm, I kind of wanted something better than that, to be honest. I guess we’re left to assume that this evidence would lead to higher profits because more customers would be attracted to the restaurant to watch celebrities, and because the diners wouldn’t stay as long, so the restaurant could serve more people. But the passage isn’t explicit about this. And that’s part of what makes the question so tricky: the connection between the evidence and the conclusion is left partly to the reader’s imagination.
And the question is funky, too. "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." So yes, this is a “weaken” question, sort of. But there’s more to it than that. The argument "gives reason to believe" that something is likely -- and the "something" would weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits. Tricky!
Quote:
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
First, the passage does not "give us reason to believe" that (A) would be true. Plus, I don’t know why it would undermine profitability. (A) is gone.
Quote:
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals.
There are plenty of reasons why (B) is wrong. The passage does not "give us reason to believe" that this would be true, for starters. Plus, I don’t really see how this would undermine the conclusion. I don’t think that the spending
by celebrities is the main issue here – or the main source of revenue for the restaurant. And if you think it is, then this would actually strengthen the argument a little bit. (B) is out.
Quote:
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
Hm, yeah -- the passage definitely gives us reason to believe that this is likely. After all, the passage indicates that celebrity-watching is the reason why customers come to the restaurant. And if (C) is true, then the restaurant wouldn’t "turn tables" quickly, and profits would be hurt. Keep (C).
Quote:
(D) a restaurant’s customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer.
This might be a little bit tempting, because (D) makes it sound like it would harm profits. But remember the exact phrasing of the question! The correct answer "gives reason to believe that it is likely that..." And there’s no reason why this would be likely based on the passage. Plus, it’s not clear that the effects of ordering cheaper meals would necessarily offset the effects of shorter dining times. (D) is out.
Quote:
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood’s customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables.
Again, we have no reason to think that this is likely, and the impact on profits is a little bit murky, too. For (E) to be correct, we’d have to assume that this actually chases customers away somehow, and that isn’t clear.
So (E) can be eliminated, and (C) is the best answer.
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs
Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction
YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset
SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS
Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?
Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
close
