|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
27 Jan 2026, 18:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja KarishmaB egmat
I am a little confused as to what exactly C means,
What's the generalization to lingering?
Also why not E,
If customers are coming to view celebs, replacing stools with tall chairs disrupts the view, and they can't see the celebs. Then why would they even come to the restaurant given the premise?
I am a little confused as to what exactly C means,
What's the generalization to lingering?
Also why not E,
If customers are coming to view celebs, replacing stools with tall chairs disrupts the view, and they can't see the celebs. Then why would they even come to the restaurant given the premise?
GMATNinja
miag
Expert
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Dec 2023
Last visit: 01 May 2026
Posts: 404
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Sustainability
Schools: Anderson '26 (A) Haas '26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80 
GPA: 3.2/4
Products:
Expert reply
Schools: Anderson '26 (A) Haas '26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80
Posts: 404
Kudos:
160
27 Jan 2026, 21:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Let me try to help clarify here -
In simple terms, C) is saying: The people who would choose tall tables at this restaurant might actually stay a long time, even though people on stools usually don’t.
This weakens the conclusion because it means that tall tables wont actually reduce dining time -> profits wouldn't increase.
The impact of E) on the conclusion is not clear - how would this impact profits? This would require some assumptions to be made which are not explicitly stated and hence can be ruled out.
Also attaching GMATNinja's previous response, which was quite detailed for reference: viewtopic.php?p=1902456#p1902456
Let me try to help clarify here -
In simple terms, C) is saying: The people who would choose tall tables at this restaurant might actually stay a long time, even though people on stools usually don’t.
This weakens the conclusion because it means that tall tables wont actually reduce dining time -> profits wouldn't increase.
The impact of E) on the conclusion is not clear - how would this impact profits? This would require some assumptions to be made which are not explicitly stated and hence can be ruled out.
Also attaching GMATNinja's previous response, which was quite detailed for reference: viewtopic.php?p=1902456#p1902456
rak08
27 Jan 2026, 22:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
The argument claims profits will rise if the restaurant adds tall tables, because customers want them and people seated on stools usually leave faster.
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
This does not weaken the argument. Where celebrities choose to sit does not affect whether customers leave faster or profits rise.
(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 is irrelevant. The argument is not about how much celebrities spend, but about seating type and customer turnover.
(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 exposes the flaw. The argument assumes that customers who choose tall tables will behave like typical stool-seated diners and leave quickly. But it is quite possible that these customers are exceptions and may linger just as long, which breaks the link to higher profits.
(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 brings in meal prices, which the argument never relies on. The reasoning is about time spent, not order value.
(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 is a practical concern, but it does not challenge the key assumption about customer behavior and profits.
Answer: (C)
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
The argument claims profits will rise if the restaurant adds tall tables, because customers want them and people seated on stools usually leave faster.
(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
This does not weaken the argument. Where celebrities choose to sit does not affect whether customers leave faster or profits rise.
(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 is irrelevant. The argument is not about how much celebrities spend, but about seating type and customer turnover.
(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 exposes the flaw. The argument assumes that customers who choose tall tables will behave like typical stool-seated diners and leave quickly. But it is quite possible that these customers are exceptions and may linger just as long, which breaks the link to higher profits.
(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 brings in meal prices, which the argument never relies on. The reasoning is about time spent, not order value.
(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 is a practical concern, but it does not challenge the key assumption about customer behavior and profits.
Answer: (C)
