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

It is currently 18 Sep 2019, 13:03

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 219
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2014, 09:27
tsatomic wrote:
Hi Kevin,

I was of the idea that since the question says "... it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" it is an Assumption question. Therefore, D and E are also invalid because they are statements which, if true, would weaken the argument but we are not looking for such statements. Instead we are looking for assumptions that the argument makes. And one assumption, as you pointed out as well, is that those occupying tall tables would be an exception to the lingering generalization.

Thus, D is the answer.



Hi tsatomic, I understand the point that you are trying to make, but ultimately, this is a weakening question—not an assumption question. Look at the whole question stem:

Quote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


You can't ignore the first part of the question stem and decide that it isn't part of what you are being asked to do. We are not looking just for an assumption. We are looking for an assumption that we can expose and use to weaken the argument as a whole. That's what the first part of the question asks us to do, and that's what we'll do.

Does that make sense?

Happy Studying! :D
_________________
Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Posts: 88
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2015, 00:51
Shawshank 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


A very nice and subtle question:

A fact from argument: many customer go to Hollywood Restaurant with the primary intention of seeing celebs

A generalization from argument: diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables

If tall tables with stools provide better view of celebs for customers who many of them go to Hollywood Restaurant to see the celebs, then this kind of seating (in the context of this question) may not necessarily lead to shorter dinning time, compared to an average customer in a restaurant. Since the motives of customers of Hollywood restaurant are different from motives of customer of other restaurants, the kind of seating mentioned might even produce opposite effects, i.e. longer dining time, which might reduce the profit.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1096
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2015, 10:49
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.

However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they prefer tall tables with stools for 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..........profits wont increase since diners will sit for the same amount of time as earlier.

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................whether celebrities linger for a long time or not does not affect the argument since fans may or may not linger and thus profits may or may not arise.

C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
It is given in the argument that
Quote:
diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
but this argument assumes that this diner on stool represents a customer of Hollywood and he will not stay for long even if he came to his favorite celebrity.

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 they order less priced item still this may or may not result in profits. this does not indicate flaw

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...........whether there is a view of other or standard tables does not explain flaw in the argument as it does not affect the argument in any way.
Marshall & McDonough Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1680
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2017, 00:16
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?

Can you please explain why C is the right answer choice?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 7
CAT Tests
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
Posts: 14
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 182
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2019, 01:38
Can someone please spoon feed me the reasoning . Still not able to understand
_________________
If my post anyway helped you,please spare Kudos !
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
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

New post 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
VP
User avatar
P
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1021
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if you like my post pls!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Nov 2015
Posts: 3
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Posts: 18
CAT Tests
Re: At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?
GMAT Club Bot
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

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne