It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 14:46

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm

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

Hide Tags

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 81 [2], given: 11

Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 16:20
2
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (01:13) correct 47% (01:14) wrong based on 530 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence. When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax,” for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the restaurateur’s argument?

(A) The food item mentioned is unlikely to be delicious.
(B) A restaurant offering such food is probably expensive.
(C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question.
(D) A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor.
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive.

I have a serious doubt in this question. Please explain the answer.
Thanks.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 81 [2], given: 11

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 831

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 61

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 21:40
D seems best here
E is too extreme to be an answer

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 61

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 126

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 21:56
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.


When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

only in this statement that acts as the conclusion of the argument, it is talked about potential competitors. so, we can expect a supporter assumption that fills the gap pop up.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the restaurateur’s argument?

(A) The food item mentioned is unlikely to be delicious.
it is mentioned in the premise that "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food"
so this option has no new information, and if you negate this option it does not breaks the argument down.

(B) A restaurant offering such food is probably expensive. being expensive is irrelevant

(C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question.
the conclusion is about potential competitors. whether the restaurant himself offer the food in the question has no no effect on the conclusion

(D) A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor. a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax” is an example of the restaurant that focuses on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions. So, the Restaurateur did not consider this type of restaurants as his/her competitors
this option close the gap between premises and conclusion. in addition, if you negate this option it will breaks down the conclusion.

(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive.
whether they are mutually exclusive or not does not explain the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 831

Kudos [?]: 290 [2], given: 61

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 22:06
2
This post received
KUDOS
Quote:
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive. whether they are mutually exclusive or not does not explain the conclusion.


this is not entirely true!!
in fact the conclusion that u have marked is not actually the conclusion of the argument
the fact is : Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions:
the conclusion is that such focus often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.
now the problem with E is that it becomes too extreme to explain this argument :the fact that such focus comes at the expense of attention to delicious food does not mean that these two sets are mutually exclusive

Kudos [?]: 290 [2], given: 61

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 126

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2014, 22:55
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
aditya8062 wrote:
Quote:
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive. whether they are mutually exclusive or not does not explain the conclusion.


this is not entirely true!!
in fact the conclusion that u have marked is not actually the conclusion of the argument
the fact is : Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions:
the conclusion is that such focus often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.
now the problem with E is that it becomes too extreme to explain this argument :the fact that such focus comes at the expense of attention to delicious food does not mean that these two sets are mutually exclusive


but I think you didn't pay attention that the first part of the argument is a set of facts and a minor general judgement at the part of "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence." however, these parts have general perspective. and the reasoning in this part is quite sound.

but the last line is where the the main judgement of the Restauranteur comes into light with "When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors" that is a conditional reasoning.. and whenever we have conditional reasoning the assumption always always defends the necessary condition.

for identifying the real conclusion you can add "since" at the beginning of the premise and "therefore" at the beginning of the conclusion. if it makes sense then you can be sure that the conclusion is the real one.
if we implement this technique to your comments it will be:
since "Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions" therefore "such focus often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence". which does not make sense, but consider the following reasoning:

since "Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence", therefore "When I hear of such restaurant, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors".

or if we make a mere change in the order of the facts it would make better sense:

since the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence is to offer delicious food and since Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions, therefore When I hear of such restaurant, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

but I agree that your explanation about choice E is also true. :)

hope it helps.

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 11

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 04:27
Hi,
Why is option C wrong?
The conclusion says, 'When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.'
If we use the negation test here, and negate option C, we get that the Restaurateur offered the foods in question. If he also offered such foods, how can he easily eliminate that restaurant from his list of potential customers. It is quite easy to assume that the Restaurateur didn't offer these items and that's why he was very optimistic in eliminating these restaurants from his list of potential customers.
But in option (d), we have to assume that 'lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax' is actually a'fancified menu description.' Though, on hearing, it seems to be a very fancy term, assuming such a fact isn't wrong for GMAT??
Please if anybody could elaborate on this doubt..
Thanks in advance.:)

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 11

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 126

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 06:27
Sukant2010 wrote:
Hi,
Why is option C wrong?
The conclusion says, 'When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.'
If we use the negation test here, and negate option C, we get that the Restaurateur offered the foods in question. If he also offered such foods, how can he easily eliminate that restaurant from his list of potential customers. It is quite easy to assume that the Restaurateur didn't offer these items and that's why he was very optimistic in eliminating these restaurants from his list of potential customers.
But in option (d), we have to assume that 'lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax' is actually a'fancified menu description.' Though, on hearing, it seems to be a very fancy term, assuming such a fact isn't wrong for GMAT??
Please if anybody could elaborate on this doubt..
Thanks in advance.:)



Sukant2010 for assumption question you must exactly know the function that assumption plays in the argument. negation test is not always helpful. there are assumption question in which negation test for two options breaks the argument. remember negation test breaks even infer option! and in choice c we have an infer answer. it is under the categorization of must be true but it is not an assumption!

C can be the correct choice for an infer question not an assumption.

a correct answer for an assumption question has three specification:
1- it must be true
2- contain new info
3- support the conclusion

and an assumption can play two roles:
1- supporter (fill the gaps between premise and conclusion) ;similar to what we have in option D
2- defender (defend the conclusion) ( which if you think option C can be assumption it should play the role of defender, but does it defend the conclusion in any way??)

Does option "C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question." in any way helps to support the conclusion "When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors."?? to justify this option you have to create as extra assumption saying that "If he also offered such foods, how can he easily eliminate that restaurant from his list of potential customers." I mean you make an extra link (in addition to option C itself) to justify the assumption.

hope it helps :)

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 101

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 07:12
Sukant2010 wrote:
Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence. When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax”, for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the restaurateur’s argument?

(A) The food item mentioned is unlikely to be delicious.
(B) A restaurant offering such food is probably expensive.
(C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question.
(D) A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor.
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive.

I have a serious doubt in this question. Please explain the answer.
Thanks.


Can somebody help me with the conclusion for this argument??


Thanks in advance.

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 72

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 846 [3], given: 5

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2014, 12:44
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Sure thing rrsnathan.

The conclusion that the restaurateur makes is that the one restaurant offering the needlessly fanciful menu items is not a competitor for him. The question is an assumption question, so you need something that bridges the logical gap between premises (non-food focus takes focus off food) and the conclusion (named restaurant with fanciful menu item is not a competitor). Answer choice D provides that bridge by stating that fanciful name restaurants don't make good competitors.

If you added that assumption as a premise, the logic would flow like this:

Focus on non-food items (i.e. fancy names) takes focus off food.
Assumption: Restaurants that focus on fancy names aren't successful competitors.
This restaurant has a fancy name.
The restaurant will not be a successful competitor.

You can see that without the Assumption there is a gap between the non-food focus and competition.

Hope this helps.
KW
_________________


Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile



Kudos [?]: 846 [3], given: 5

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2016, 07:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 23 Jan 2016
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 510

Location: India
GPA: 3.2
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2017, 01:28
Still dont get why E is incorrect. Can anyone help here?

Thanks

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 510

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 16 Oct 2015
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 12

GMAT 1: 520 Q44 V17
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 710 Q48 V40
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2017, 02:44
OreoShake wrote:
Still dont get why E is incorrect. Can anyone help here?

Thanks

Try to negate the statement and see if the conclusion is shattered

Sent from my MI 3W using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 12

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Aug 2017
Posts: 67

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 162

Location: Korea, Republic of
GMAT 1: 660 Q51 V26
GPA: 3.68
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2017, 07:06
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Mike sir!

How we eliminate (E)

And how we know "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence" is an argument of this question?

"I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors." also looks good for me as an argument.

If so, (E) could be assumption here.


Am I wrong?

mikemcgarry

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 162

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488

Kudos [?]: 8754 [2], given: 105

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2017, 11:12
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
bluetrain wrote:
Mike sir!

How we eliminate (E)

And how we know "a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence" is an argument of this question?

"I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors." also looks good for me as an argument.

If so, (E) could be assumption here.


Am I wrong?

mikemcgarry

Dear bluetrain,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

For the purposes of a GMAT CR argument, we have to assume that the premises are true. In real life, we get to question people's premises, but in the cookbook world of the GMAT CR, we simply have to assume that the premises are completely factual. In this argument, this is the premise:
Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence.
We need to accept that at face value.

Choice (E) is extreme. Consider the negation test: suppose one could focus on both food and decor, and do a mediocre job at both. It could be the case that one is focusing on both of these, but the restaurant still isn't good. We can negate this and it's still possible the argument would work.

Also, it's good to develop an ear for extreme language. The phrase "mutually exclusive" is a very strong phrase: it means that wherever P appears, there's no trace of Q, and vice verse. Few things in the real world are 100% mutually exclusive. When you see extreme language, you should get suspicious, because a choice with extreme language is almost never correct on the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8754 [2], given: 105

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Apr 2017
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 23

Location: India
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2017, 19:33
E cites only one of the conditions mentioned in the premise. For a restaurant to have lost focus on the food, all three conditions - décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions - need to be met.
_________________

We are what we REPEATEDLY do. GREATNESS then is not ACT, but a HABIT.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 23

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2017, 01:03
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
KyleWiddison wrote:
Sure thing rrsnathan.

The conclusion that the restaurateur makes is that the one restaurant offering the needlessly fanciful menu items is not a competitor for him. The question is an assumption question, so you need something that bridges the logical gap between premises (non-food focus takes focus off food) and the conclusion (named restaurant with fanciful menu item is not a competitor). Answer choice D provides that bridge by stating that fanciful name restaurants don't make good competitors.

If you added that assumption as a premise, the logic would flow like this:

Focus on non-food items (i.e. fancy names) takes focus off food.
Assumption: Restaurants that focus on fancy names aren't successful competitors.
This restaurant has a fancy name.
The restaurant will not be a successful competitor.

You can see that without the Assumption there is a gap between the non-food focus and competition.

Hope this helps.
KW




It seems the first premise "Focus on non-food items (i.e. fancy names) takes focus off food." is not necessary/can be omitted in the argument structure.
Namely below claims/facts themselves can make the argument.

Assumption: Restaurants that focus on fancy names aren't successful competitors.
This restaurant has a fancy name.
The restaurant will not be a successful competitor.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 578

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 132

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2017, 14:19
Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atmosphere, and needlessly fancified menu descriptions: a focus that often comes at the expense of attention to delicious food, the primary reason for a restaurant’s existence. When I hear of a restaurant offering “lapsang souchong-cured portabella gravlax,” for example, I know one restaurant I can cross off my list of potential competitors.

Which of the following is a presupposition of the restaurateur’s argument?

(A) The food item mentioned is unlikely to be delicious. -We don't know anything about the taste of the food item.
(B) A restaurant offering such food is probably expensive. -The argument doesn't mean that the fancy restaurants are expensive, instead it specifies that such restaurants might not have delicious food.
(C) The restaurateur himself does not offer the foods in question. -Out of scope
(D) A restaurant featuring fancified menu descriptions is unlikely to prove a successful competitor. -Correct. As per the premise, such fancy restaurants often neglect the quality of food. This can result in removal of their name from the competitors list.
(E) A focus on food and a focus on décor are mutually exclusive. -Out of scope
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 132

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2017, 14:24
CR Qs ..password to the test is JAG Educate... https://sites.google.com/justaskgaurav. ... e-101/home

Ideal time for test completion is 18mins

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm   [#permalink] 20 Nov 2017, 14:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Restaurateur: Too many restaurants today focus on décor, atm

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.