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

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.

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.

KevinRocci · Accepted Answer

As with all arguments, I like to first start by reading the question and then breaking down the argument into conclusion and premises. First the question:

Shawshank

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

Alright so I know now that I will be dealing with weaknesses in the argument. So I will keep that in mind as I break it down.

Shawshank

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.

Conclusion: Replace seating and profits will go up

Premise: People go to restaurant to see celebs
Premise: People want tall tables and seats to see the celebs
Premise: Diners on stools don't stay as long

Alright so there is the argument. Not a lot there to support the idea that profits will go up expect for the fact that there might be a faster turn over of tables. But there are a lot of assumptions here:

1. tall stools and tables won't deter people from spending as much as they did with normal tables
2. People actually want to see celebs and not eat food
3. Celebs will continue to come even if it easier for people to see them at the taller tables
...

Now it is time to look at the answer choices and see what makes the argument vulnerable. We need to look for reasons for why profits might not increase.

Shawshank

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available

Well, this is not a problem. This is just more support for having taller tables. The celebs will come to sit at the tall tables making it easier for people to see them. This is not a criticism. Eliminate.

Shawshank

(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

This too focused on the celebrities. The argument and the restaurant does not base its profits on how much celebs spend. Profits are based on all the other people coming to the restaurant. This is too narrowly focused so eliminate.

Shawshank

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

This gets at one of the assumptions I had. If someone sits at a tall table, will they stay longer or leave faster. Here we have a possible example, or a question, about what these customers are like. The argument assumed that people at the Hollywood would leave quickly when at a tall table, like at other restaurants. But what if having a tall table means you can see the celebs. This might be a reason to stay. And thus there would not be a fast turn over. People might stay longer because they have a good view of a celeb whereas before, without a good view, people would just eat and leave. This looks like the answer.

Shawshank

(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 also close to what I was saying in the assumptions. But the problem is that this does not necessarily weaken the argument. People who stay less time order less expensive food which might cut into the profits. But if you have more people coming in to eat, and you can sit more people during your business hours, then ordering less expensive food won't be a problem. So this might be a problem, but not necessarily. Answer choice (C) would necessarily weaken the argument and cut into profits always. So this answer is not as good as D. But is a good tempting choice.

Shawshank

(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 might also be a problem, but the argument doesn't say that they are going to jam tables into the restaurant. There is no mention of adding more seating. They are merely going to replace tables that they have. So this is outside the scope of the argument and wrong.

I hope that I was able to shed some light on this question.

11MBA · Answer

At first I was btw choosing D and E. But after reading the explanations, I see why C is the best.

D. States that people who sit there for a shorter amount of time have a cheaper tab than people who sit for longer. This doesn't necessarily undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion, because the higher turnover can still result in a larger total revenue. For example, if people who stay for an avg of 30mins order $10 of food per person and people who stay for 1hr order 15 dollars of food, then in 1hr the total revenue in the first scenario would be 20 and in the second only 15. And the argument assumes that there will be higher turnover after all the tables are converted to tall tables.

E. States that if all the tables were tall tables then the view would be ruined. The question states that taller tables offer a better view of the celebrities. It does NOT say that the taller table offers a better view of the celebrities because the celebrities are sitting at lower tables or because the tall tables are spaced far enough apart to get a good view of the celebrities. Therefore, answer E doesn't undermine the restaurant owner's conclusion. Someone pointed out that the increase in tall tables would take away the height advantage. This is an assumption on the part of the reader! The question merely states that tall tables afford a better view of celebrities, period. It doesn't say how it offers a better view of the celebrities.

C is the best because the owner plans to increase revenues by drawing people in with universally good views of celebs from the tall tables, which also discourage lingering. Basically he will attract more people who will spend less time eating. However, if they do linger then his profits won't be higher than before when he had the standard height tables, which typically made people stay longer than the tall tables. He won't be able to achieve the higher turnover rate he was looking for.

That's my 2cents. Keep in mind this question asks for the best answer, which in this case is C.

GMATNinja · Answer

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.

aurobindo · Answer

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.

mourinhogmat1 · Answer

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. :evil:

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.

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.

conty911 · Answer

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.

grumpyoldman · Answer

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.

daagh · Answer

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.

tsatomic · Answer

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.

KevinRocci · 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

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

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.

LogicGuru1 · Answer

A super easy question

ANSWER IS C

Remember CR is all about knowing the rules - what and when info can be brought in, decoding the language, and catching the subtle linguistic nuances premise after premise.

Premise 1) Customer want to see celebrities and doing that is easier if customer has tall tables
Premise 2) Tall tables are also not suitable to sit for longer period. So GENERALLY customer don't LINGER AROUND and leave as soon as they finish their order
Conclusion)Hollywood Restaurant should change SOME of their short tables into Tall tables to increase profit

WEAKEN :- IT IS USUALLY TRUE THAT CUSTOMER DONT LIKE TO LINGER AROUND IN THE RESTAURANT IF THEY ARE ON TALL TABLE BUT WHAT IF THEY ARE READY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION HOPING THAT TALL TABLE WILL INCREASE THIER CHANCES TO SEE A CELEBRITY . THEN TALL TABLE WILL MAKE CUSTOMER STAY FOR A LONGER TIME PERIOD AND THESE CUSTOMERS WILL UNNECESSARY BLOCK TABLE AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS WILL NOT BE SERVED. MEANING LOSS

(C) A customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
MEANING ANY CUSTOMER WHO WOULD SIT ON TALL TABLE IN HOLLYWOOD RESTAURANT IS A CRAZY, STALKER, STARRY EYED, CELEBRITY OBSESSED FOOL AND WILL NOT LEAVE THE RESTAURANT JUST HOPING AND HOPING THAT HE WOULD SEE A CELEBRITY ANYTIME SOON. AND THUS HIS BEHAVIOUR WILL AFFECT SALES AND PROFIT OF HOLLYWOOD RESTAURANT. (I WENT OVER THE TOP BECAUSE AT TIMES CR CAN BE TOO TAXING ON BRAIN AND A LITTLE SMILE GOES A LONG WAY TO SOOTHE THE NERVES :-D

)

)

Kurtosis · Answer

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?

GMATNinja · Answer

Ah, I think I see the error here.

This is the "generalization" described in (C): 
 
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!

shahul. · Answer

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.

GMATNinja · Answer

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.

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

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.

ExpertsGlobal5 · 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):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECTz36Zx8v8

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Option D could be a valid answer to this question if I change the question stem to "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that".

Option D seems to give a reason why the profits would not increase if the restaurant made the change.

However, the question stem also says "it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" - the first "it" here refers to the argument. Thus, we're looking for an option that the argument gives us a reason to believe in. Option D is NOWHERE indicated by the argument. The argument never gets into relating less time at meals with less expensive meals.

This question is a MIX of weaken and inference question types . We're looking for a weakener that is likely true given the argument.

Option E would not be correct even if I change the question stem to "The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that". The reason is that a restaurant doesn't need to accommodate ALL the customers to increase its profit. Even with customers left out, the profits can easily increase. The problem pointed by E is w.r.t. a situation in which the restaurants accommodates all the customers.

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

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

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

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