Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tal

Question

Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tall tables and stools. The restaurant already fills every available seat during its operating hours, and the change in seating arrangements will not result in an increase in the restaurant's seating capacity. Nonetheless, the restaurant's management expects revenue to increase as a result of the seating change without any concurrent change in menu, prices, or operating hours.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best reason for the expectation?

(A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables.

(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.

(C) Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables.

(D) Few diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement.

(E) The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense.

ID - CR03367

egmat · Accepted Answer

Hi,

In this question, we need to find the best reason for the expectation.

Expectation : Revenue will increase

Constraints:

No change in menu, prices, or operating hours

No increase in seating capacity

Analysis of Option Statements

https://e-gmat.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Celebrating-Milestones1.png (A)  One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables . - Even if taller tables take less space, it is clearly given in the passage the seating capacity will not increase. So, there is advantage of less space occupying tables. Therefore, this does not provide a reason for increased revenues.

(B)  Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.  - If this is true, then even with all the constraints, the restaurants will have more customers everyday. So, if previously, diners used to take 30 minutes, diners now take 20 minutes to eat. So, while in previous case, each table served 2 customers every hour, now every table serves 3 customers every hour. So, it provides a reason for increase in revenues.   Correct.

(C)  Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables.  - Irrelevant

(D) Fe w diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement.  - This provides a reason as to why the revenues should not fall but it does not provide any reason for expectation for increased revenues.

(E)  The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense . - We are concerned with revenues, not costs. Irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

mojorising666 · Answer

B.

argument says that changing the seat pattern will increase revenue eventhough the number of seats will not increase.
B states a reason how this will be achieved.
people will take less time to eat their meals. Thus more people will visit the restaurant .Thus revenue will increase.

suppose previously in 1 hr 1 customer ate. now 2 will eat as customer wont linger on the food because of the seating. So more customers will eat in same amount of time.Thus more revenues.

Not a 700 level question.

thevenus · Answer

(A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables.
 "....change in seating arrangements will not result in an increase in the restaurant's seating capacity..." Incorrect

(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.
 so , the standard table/new arrangement will attract more diners.

(C) Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables.
 customers who do or do not care for the taller table is not under consideration.

(D) Few diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement.
 weakening

(E) The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense.
 expense is not under consideration.

deepen · Answer

IMO- B.
A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables.
 I t won't increase the capacity of the res.  
(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.
 There will be more cycles of diners within the same operating hours, increasing the customers and in turn revenue.

(C) Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables.
 not leading to customer increase 
(D) Few diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement.
 going against the new arrangement 
(E) The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense.
 going in different direction.

stoy4o · Answer

This looks like a paradox question. For this kind of question you're looking to identify a missing link or info that will correct the gap between the facts and the conclusion.

Facts are: 
1) Tall tables and stools are replacing standard tables.
2) No other changes to seats, menus, etc.
Conclusion: All things being equal before and after change produce more profit.

Hm, so since this doesn't flow together you're looking for the answer that solve the question "Hows is this conclusion possible?

In this question, in particular, we're looking for a positive outcome (higher profits), so the answer choise that supports this will be the correct one.

A) Looks irrelevant. Taking less space does nothing to bring more revenue, since there is no other table or stool to occupy the vacant space. (this is just an example and not necessarily the case)
B) This answer choice looks promising. It says that diners take less time to finish their mean and go, which means that those tables are readily available sooner than they previously used to be. Serving more people within less amount of time guarantees profits at a higher rate, which favors the conclusion.
C) Bears no change to the conclusion that profit will be higher. I think it's also out of scope because it only talks about a small group of the customers, those that do not care about the change in the seating accommodations.
D) This weakens the conclusion, which we try to strengthen. Fewer customers means less revenue -> less profit.
E) If not worse, this only says that the change made has no positive or negative impact on the profits generated.

Hence, B.

VeritasPrepRon · Answer

Indeed A seems like a tempting choice until you reread the question and it specifically indicates that the number of seats will remain unchanged. In essence, no more patrons will enter the establishment, but there will be more available floorspace for... say going to the bathroom or whatever. Since there is no increase in the number of customers at any given time, the only way to increase revenue is to increase turnover. The same table will be occupied only for an hour instead of two hours. That will increase revenue even if there are never more than 100 customers in the restaurant at any given time.

B is thus the perfect answer.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

B is thus the perfect answer.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

EMPOWERgmatRichC · Answer

Hi All,

In a CR, the conclusion gives you an end result that all of the other ideas must lead to. Here, we're told that replacing some standard tables with tall tables and stools will lead to an INCREASE IN EXPECTED REVENUE without anything else changing (every available seat is still filled, the menu/prices/hours will stay the same). We need an answer that would help to explain WHY the revenue would increase.

The correct answer offers a reason why more customers would be expected at the restaurant (remember that every seat gets filled with a customer).

Final Answer:  B

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

MAnkur · Answer

Isn't the revenue equals total income minus the expenses/spents. In that case option E talks about an alternative that would save on the expenses thereby increasing the revenue. No proper reasoing is available in posts for eliminating option E. Further, option B as explained by Payal, kindly clarify more on the phrase "as long as diners seated at standard tables"

HaileyCusimano · Answer

Hi  MAnkur  - happy to chime in and respond to this point!

Revenue  refers to the total income received, irrespective of costs.  Net income , or  profit , are what we use to describe total income (or revenue) minus expenses. So, in this case,  (E)  is irrelevant to us here, as we're concerned with explaining the expected increase in revenue - not profit. Also, keep in mind, that they're expecting an increase - not just a lesser decrease, so  (E)  wouldn't hold much ground even if we were taking profit. That said, the revenue vs. profit distinction is an important one to keep in mind with questions like this one!

So, if we're looking for an explanation as to why revenue would increase despite no change in menu, prices, or hours of operation - we need some other explanation as to why the revenue (or total income) would be expected to increase.  (B)  does this for us, as it gives us reason why within the same pricing structure and hours of operation, we could expect revenue to increase - as total customer served could be expected to increase with a higher potential for turnover.

I hope this helps clarify!

Pritishd · Answer

Ans.  B

Nipungupta9081 · Answer

Answer B

Option A - Going opposite of what's said in the premise ( X )

Option B - if people linger less => less time spent => more revenue because more people will be sitting.

Option C - Nothing said about this in the premise ( X )

Option D - Opposite ( X )

Option E - IRRELEVANT ( X )

CEdward · Answer

It's all about identifying what exactly is being said. The dilemma here is that management expects revenue to  increase  despite changes in the menu, prices, operating hours, or an increase in capacity. So there must be some other factor that would explain this.

Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tall tables and stools. The restaurant already fills every available seat during its operating hours, and the change in seating arrangements  will not result in an increase in the restaurant's seating capacity . Nonetheless, the restaurant's management  expects revenue to increase as a result of the seating change without any concurrent change in menu, prices, or operating hours

Which of the following, if true, provides the best reason for the expectation?

(A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one of the standard tables. X
This is trying to get at the fact that less floor space means the restaurant can accommodate more tables and hence drive revenues up that way. However, we already know that the seating capacity WILL NOT increase. OUT.

(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables. 
Correct. The missing link. Revenue is certainly influenced by time. Increased patron turnover means more dishes sold.

(C) Since the restaurant will replace only some of its standard tables, it can continue to accommodate customers who do not care for the taller tables. X

This does not resolve the paradox. In fact, this says nothing new at all. We already know there will be a mix of standard + tall tables.

(D) Few diners are likely to avoid the restaurant because of the new seating arrangement. X

OK, so at the very least this means we could maintain revenue. But why would it increase despite all of those other factors staying constant?

(E) The standard tables being replaced by tall tables would otherwise have to be replaced with new standard tables at a greater expense. X

Expenses =/ Revenue

Monkeyking · Answer

premise: Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tall tables and stools
premise: full seated during operating time, seating capacity remain the same
premise: without any concurrent change in menu, prices, or operating hours
contradiction: seating change leads revenue to increase
fallacy: fill in the gap between seating change and increased revenue, find an alternate reason;
A) irrelevant; less floor space doesnt change seat capacity, it cannot explain fallacy
B) seat change can make retaurant serve more clients since it is always full seated 
C) the same as A）
D) the same as A) 
E) the same as A)

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Difficulty Level:   Easy

Argument Construction

Situation

Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its tables with taller tables and stools, and the management expects this will increase revenue, despite the fact that the restaurant already fills all of its available seats and that this change will not increase seating capacity. Furthermore, there will not be any change in menu, prices, or operating hours.

Reasoning

What would strongly support the management’s expectation?  Since the new seating will not increase the restaurant’s seating capacity, the management’s expectations must be based on a belief that the change to taller tables and stools will somehow change diners’ behavior, perhaps by leading them to order more food, or to stay at their tables for a shorter time, thereby allowing the restaurant to serve more diners during its operating hours without increasing seating capacity. If diners seated at tall tables and on tall stools spend less time lingering over their dinners, then they will leave sooner, opening up the tables for more diners. Because the restaurant, before the change, already fills every available seat during its operating hours, it is reasonable to think that it will be able to serve more diners than it currently does, thereby selling more food and thus increasing revenue.

A.  This would be relevant if we could infer from it that seating capacity will increase. However, the passage indicates that the new seating arrangement will not result in greater capacity.

B.  Correct.   Because the restaurant will be able to serve more meals during its operating hours, the restaurant’s revenue can be expected to increase.

C.  This may indicate that the restaurant is less likely to alienate customers who do not care for tall tables and stools, but that only supports the claim that the restaurant will not lose customers and therefore lose revenue; it does not indicate that the restaurant will see revenue increase.

D.  Again, this merely indicates that there will not be a loss—or much loss—of revenue, not that there will be an increase in revenue.

E.  Less expensive tables will decrease the restaurant’s costs, but it will notincrease the restaurant’s revenue.

The correct answer is B.

NEYR0N · Answer

isnt this a strengthener ? not a resolve a paradox.

bb · Answer

No. There is no argument to strengthen that I can see. What are your strengthening here?

carcass · Answer

Great question for a student to test his/her mental flexibility regardless the words strenght or weaken or else. Read just carefully and move step by step

The restaurant management expects revenue to increase despite no increase in total seating capacity. The expectation likely arises from greater efficiency in seat usage or faster turnover rather than more seats.

Let's analyze the options for the best reason:
(A) One of the taller tables takes up less floor space than one standard table.
- This would increase seating capacity if true, but the problem states seating capacity remains unchanged. So (A) doesn't explain expected revenue increase.
(B) Diners seated on stools typically do not linger over dinner as long as diners seated at standard tables.
- This means faster table turnover, more customers served per operating hour, higher revenue despite same capacity. This directly explains revenue increase. Good choice.
(C) Since the restaurant replaces some but not all standard tables, it can still accommodate diners who prefer standard tables.
- This addresses customer preference but doesn't explain revenue increase.
(D) Few diners would avoid the restaurant due to the seating change.
- This supports maintenance of customer base but not revenue increase.
(E) The replaced standard tables would've needed expensive replacement anyway.
- This talks about cost, not revenue increase.

Best answer: (B) because faster turnover of customers at stools allows more revenue per same number of seats.

Hence, the management expects revenue increase due to reduced dining time per customer with stools, allowing more customers served during operating hours without changing menu, prices, or hours.

Answer: (B)

NEYR0N · Answer

Strengthen - the management's expectation of an increase in revenue.

it also contains the word "if true" in question stem, which is a sign of a strengthener, right ?

NEYR0N · Answer

this is def a strengthener question, theres an opinion/ a judgement call: the manager expects an increase in revenue, which is also a conclusion. Are we not supposed to strengthen the conclusion by providing a premise ?

Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tal

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Hollywood restaurant is replacing some of its standard tables with tal

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards