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

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.

Dear Friends,

Here is the detailed explanation to this question-




Mind-map: Taller seating allows celebrity view → more customers → greater profit.

Missing link: Between installation of taller seating and conclusion that it will increase profit.

Expectation from the correct answer choice: To weaken that taller seating will lead to greater profit.

Choice A: This answer choice only establishes that the taller seating at the restaurant is likely to attract several celebrities who wish to be seen, which, in turn, means that a greater number of celebrity watchers will be attracted to the restaurant; this means that the restaurant will see greater customer volume; as this answer choice strengthens the argument that the installation of taller seating will increase profits by outlining a situation that will increase customer volume, it is an incorrect answer choice.
Choice B: This answer choice is irrelevant, as it establishes that celebrities order expensive meals that compensate for the time they spend lingering over their meals; it does not refer to the link between the installation of taller seating and increased consumer turnover and profits in the slightest; therefore, this answer choice is an incorrect answer choice.
Choice C: This answer choice establishes that customers who seat themselves at the taller tables in order to look at celebrity customers would linger over their meals for a longer duration; thereby, this answer choice weakens the argument that taller seating will lead to increased customer turnover, by making it clear that the customers who occupy this seating will do so for an extended period of time, lowering customer turnover and, consequently, profits; therefore, this is the correct answer choice.
Choice D: This answer choice establishes that customers who spend lesser time at their tables order less expensive food; however, it does not account for the fact that this also leads to greater customer volume and turnover, as customers who spend less time at their tables will vacate them sooner, allowing for new customers to be seated; accordingly, this answer choice does not necessarily establish that the installation of taller seating will have a detrimental effect on profits, as the increased turnover of customers will not be lessened in the slightest; therefore, this answer choice does not weaken the link between the installation of taller seating and an increase in customer turnover and profits, making it an incorrect answer choice.
Choice E: This answer choice is irrelevant as it only lays out the fact that an inordinate increase in the amount of tall seating, to accommodate all patrons who desire such seating, will only leave customers with a view of other tall tables; the passage does not mention increasing the number of tables in the restaurant at all, it merely deals with replacing pre-existing short tables with tall ones; furthermore, whether or not the tall tables afford a view of short tables does not affect customer turnover or profits; therefore, this is an incorrect answer choice.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Weakening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning,” you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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

An exception. So there wont be increase in profits. So the answer is C.

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 is actually stregthening the logic followed in the argument. So D can't be the answer.

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

Argument does not say that all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating are going to be accomodated. So E can't be the answer.

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
-Correct-If the restaurant was perfectly ok with lingering customers then one or many may wait around for hours for their fav celeb to come wondering in. One can argue that high stools and table may not be a good idea because regular paying customers would bring in the more profit than those.. umm possible fanatics who would be encouraged by the availability of high tables.

(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 is a great general statement but it doesn't really prove that profit would be affected by replacing seating with high tables and stool - out

(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.
-Note the strong language ALL customers would be interested in such seating-The argument mentions that replacing some of the seating but.. enough to only see other tall tables? - (I was thinking of a scenario arguing with a person and bringing up option (E) to my defense. He/she would reply nuh uh I didn't say that I wanted to replace that many tables and chair you egghead I said SOME some =])

A fantastic question!

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.

So, what is the argument?
1) Replace normal seats with stools and increase profit. Why?
a) diners prefers stools for better view
b) diners come to see celebs
c) NOTE: Also stool diners dont stay as long as standard height table diners(perhaps because of arching leg pains)

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

STEM: Which of the following if true weakens type. I saw somebody mention that it's a MUST BE TRUE type, but I disagree because the main "part of the stem" asks us why the argument is vulnerbale to criticisim. And all the answer choices are not in the stimulus or rather external information

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. So, this strengthens the argument.
(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.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Yes. Because if the celebs stay longer, people will want to view them longer and price of meals is already compensated for by their lingering.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? A big fat NO. This is because majority of the folks will linger rather than sit on the stool and order food. So, this weakens the argument.
(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
I found this choice the most difficult to eliminate. I was stuck between C and D for a very long time. ~ 4mins and then chose D.
Does this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Actually this statement means to say that if we have more stools, revenue will go down because people will order less expensive meals. Turnover xTime at meal x $/meal = $$ (Revenue). BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION HERE. IF you can have more turnover because stools -> shorter time at table, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT INCREASING # OF STOOLS MAY HELP. SO, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY!!! SO, REJECT THIS CHOICE.
(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 this give a reason to increase the # of stools? Well Yes and No. It doesn't really address the question at all. So, IRRELEVANT.

I also picked D initially, but when iterated again though the options, i found C to be a contender for the reasons below:
So C,D,E are in race for the answer.

I rejected E on the grounds because it mentions enough tall tables ,where as conclusion talks about some of the tables being replaced with taller ones.

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. If this option were true it will definitely weakens the conclusion.

Premise: Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

The combination of option D and this premise implies that people spend more time on std. tables and also pay more for their food.

----------------------------------------xxxxx-----------------------------------

C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering-

generalization about lingering---> people on std. table lingers over their food more then people sitting on stools.
exception about this generalization would be, if a guy lingers more while sitting on stool/tall table
Now this definitely hurts the argument, since if EVERY CUSTOMER(who sits on tall table/stool) made this exception, it will difficult for the Hollywood to make room for new customers.

out of c and D , IMO C is better because we are not sure about amount of money, people sitting on std. tables will be paying higher than as compared to people on stools.Whereas, if the hotel gets clogged due to lingering guests, its business will definitely suffer to some extent.
This question is real tough one, i relied on my assumptions to reach the answer but an expert reply is much awaited.

A and B are straight out as they discuss about the celebrities coming for dinner.

I find E somewhat irrelevant to the argument at hand.

D- This is a pretty general statement regarding people staying at the tables longer and ordering expensive food.
no where does it bring out the difference between standard height and tall tables.

C- Bingo! The general trend what people follow is that they come to holly wood only to watch celebrities and just linger on ;
they plan to replace standard height with tall tables so that they can increase their profits, but what if people are just lingering ?
How will that increase the profits?

Am I right with my understanding?

It is a quite unusual question, but I did pick C. The key, as other people have noted, is paying attention to exactly what the question is asking. I figured it out this way: First of all, it is not a Weaken question but a Flaw question; it is asking for an answer that shows why the argument is "vulnerable to criticism" - in other words, an answer that describes something that is wrong with the argument. (When I teach, I tell students that if they mis-identify a Weaken question as a Flaw question or vice versa, it will almost NEVER harm them. This one might be an exception.) But then this question gets a lot more specific than the usual flaw question, because it wants us to identify a flaw which the argument ITSELF actually "gives reason to believe" is "likely". So this isn't just a typical "missing assumption" kind of flaw: Some of the alleged evidence in the argument must actually serve as evidence of a flaw.

Because they have worded the question this way, they can make our life especially hard by providing wrong answers which actually do describe flaws in the argument, but NOT the flaw which the argument contains a specific piece of evidence for. This argument is crawling with flaws, and in fact each of the four wrong answers is a flaw under some or all possible conditions. Only C, however, describes a flaw which follows from part of the evidence. One part of the evidence says that diners on tall stools IN GENERAL leave sooner; another part gives good reason to expect that diners on tall stools AT THE HOLLYWOOD will not. This contradiction then makes it impossible to support the conclusion -- even if we were to buy into the missing assumption (another flaw) that profits go up if diners leave sooner.

This topic cannot be handled except by POE, The argument is that the Restaurant will make more profits, if they installed more number of taller stools. Any choice, to be the right answer, should touch upon this critical mission.

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available. --- But still this choice is not related to making profits at all.

(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. --- no relevance to tall tables

(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --- The generalization about lingering is the these tall-table sitters do not stay long enough. But Hollywood being a place of celebrities, might tempt customers spend longer time at the table and there is no guarantee that they will order expensive meal, because their focus is to glance their idols. Hence this will be an anti-climax to the thinking of the argument think of

(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 – not related to tables

(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. – No reference to profits.

Is this a GMAT question?

I retract what I said in my earlier posts after a closer reading of the question.

If you read the question carefully you will see that there is no other group other than the following group that is mentioned with regard to lingering : "many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood,". So I do not understand how choice C can be correct as there is no group mentioned which can be taken as the exception to the generalization because all of the above group who come to see celebrities prefer to sit at a tall table and those who sit at a tall table spend less time dining.

So the argument definitely does not give reason to believe that the hollywood customers would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.

Definition: Linger : To remain or stay on in a place longer than is usual or expected, as if from reluctance to leave.

Generalization about lingering :
Case 1. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at coffee shop with one coffee. We try to spend less money and try to spend more time bcz we just want to pass the time.
Case 2. While waiting for boarding gates to open, we linger at some liquor lounge and try to gulp much before boarding gates to open. We try to spend more money and try to drink more, bcz we enjoy that.

Here Case 1 and Case 2 both are yielding opposite effect on profit, then exceptional customer to which Case we are considering.. bcz in one case he or she will profit the restaurant and in other case loss.

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:



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

Folks, there's an easy way to tell that this is not an Assumption question. The correct answer is something that is BAD for the argument. If it were an Assumption question, the correct answer would be helpful to the argument, and would flip to a weaken when negated.

If the point is that this is an assumption-based question, in other words that it requires us to understand a missing element of the argument, then that is of course true, but that is true of ALL Strengthen, Weaken, and Evaluate Q's. If an argument didn't have any missing pieces (assumptions), then there would be no need to strengthen, weaken, or evaluate. The argument would be perfect as is.

Another clue here is that the particular piece were asked to look for is something that the argument gives us "reason to believe." The question is letting us know that the argument contains the seeds of its own downfall! If folks want high tables to look at celebrities, who's to say they are going to rush back out? This is a common GMAT pattern, in which one element of an argument disrupts or negates another part.

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.

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.
(it is not celebrities who sit at these tall tables but sutomers who come to see them. This makes no sense. OFS)

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.
(Price of meals ordered by celebrities does not matter to the conclusion.)

C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
(The author of the argument assumes that general customer at standard table linger for a long time to watch a glimpse of celebrity but the customer at tall table will not spend a large time as long as diners seated at standard-height tables even as they get to watch celebrities in a better view. this is flaw as the reverse can happen as they may get excited and spend more time more than general customer at std table who cannot have a better view.)

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 this is the case of long tables, if the more people visit the restaurant at the end of the day as they spend less time on the table resulting in profits according to the argument and this new info will not be a flaw in the existing argument.)

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 results in absence of people at standard tables and will result in loss and this new info does not indicate the flaw in argument.)

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.