GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 07 Dec 2019, 12:40

### 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

# At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2993
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2017, 09:48
2
1
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2993
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2017, 21:33
1
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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 7
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2017, 12:46
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

option d. says customer who spend less time order less expensive meals. which will reduce the revenue and profit eventually. instead, we use the standard high tables customers spend more time and the profit might not increase bu won't decrease as it occurs in the 1 st case. so why not option D.

option c says "a customer ", the mentality of one customer or very few cases. how does this weaken the argument more than option d does.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2993
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2017, 08:54
1
shahul. wrote:
Why is Option D wrong?

a customer at tall table spends less time,

option d. says customer who spend less time order less expensive meals. which will reduce the revenue and profit eventually. instead, we use the standard high tables customers spend more time and the profit might not increase bu won't decrease as it occurs in the 1 st case. so why not option D.

option c says "a customer ", the mentality of one customer or very few cases. how does this weaken the argument more than option d does.

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

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.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 262
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2017, 19:14
1
giuliab3 wrote:
tennis_ball 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.

Does answer C mean that tall table customers would not linger?
Thanks!

The passage says that "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables". This is the generalization about lingering. But the passage also implies that the customers of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at tall tables would do so to have a better view of the celebrities. So that gives us some reason to believe that those Hollywood customers might be an exception to the general rule (i.e. they might want to stay longer to watch the celebrities). This would probably hurt profits (fewer customers per hour would probably mean lower sales per hour).

This explanation might also help.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
Posts: 14
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2018, 22:14
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 312
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2019, 01:38
Can someone please spoon feed me the reasoning . Still not able to understand
Intern
Joined: 22 Oct 2017
Posts: 13
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
WE: Law (Law)
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2019, 04:38
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.
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1314
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 19:42
The argument is the if the restaurant replaces some of its seating with high tables + stools then profits will increase.

This is based on the fact that the Hollywood currently utilises standard tables, which don't allow customers to fully see the celebrities who frequent the hollywood, and such customers would prefer tall tables to fully see the celebrities.
We are then told that diners at tall tables don't stay as long as those at standard height.

The argument assumes a couple of scenarios:
1. that standard diners order the same (\$) value as tall tables, but just take longer to dine.
2. that standard diners order more than tall table diners, but tall table diner volume is greater than that of standard diner volume, thus profits would be greater.

We are asked to highlight a flaw in the argument or weakness

A - Its incorrect because it doesn't really weaken or show a vulnerability. If anything, it shows a potential upside. If celebrities sit at tall tables, then they will be in plane sight of everyone's viewing and people may order more OR the same amount but stay longer. I initially thought diners would order the same amount ONLY, so profits would go down thus highlighting a vulnerability in the plan, but it can swing both ways.

B - is incorrect because the price for meals ordered shouldn't impact the plan. It is the presence of celebrities alone. If celebrities linger then customers will continue to cycle the tall-tables.

C - this was hard to interpret. But, essentially the argument assumes that customers at tall-tables won't stay as long as customers at standard tables when celebrities are present. I mean the whole reason those tall-tables are going to be installed is to facilitate celebrity spotting, so why would celebrity spotting customers decide to leave earlier if celebrities are present. Thus, the customers are stuck at a taller, perhaps smaller table than otherwise.

D - this is inherit in the plan, but its not a criticism of the plan. What if the higher volume of tall-table customers exceeds that of seated customers? Then tall-table customers would be a more profitable segment.

E - but this isn't the case. We are only told that the plan is to replace a portion. Incorrect.
Intern
Joined: 30 Nov 2015
Posts: 3
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2019, 22:32
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?
Intern
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Posts: 23
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2019, 23:52
For answer choice C, it says the argument believes that the customer sit at tall table would be exception the the generalization of lingering. But isn't the generalization of lingering means people do not linger when they seat at tall table? And the argument assume that people choose to sit at tall table will not be an exception to this generalization?
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.   [#permalink] 03 Sep 2019, 23:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by