Between 1986 and 1991, the restaurant industry saw an average table

Question

Between 1986 and 1991, the restaurant industry saw an average table occupancy rate (i.e., percent of the time that a table was occupied) of 74 percent, while the number of meals eaten out by Americans stayed constant, at an average of 212 meals out per month per 1000 people. Between 1991 and 1996, however, the average table occupancy rose to 81 percent, while the number of meals eaten out by Americans declined to 195 meals out per month per 1000 people.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be most properly drawn?

a) The average amount of time spent per meal by Americans eating out increased between 1991 and 1996.

b) The proportion of very lengthy meals to somewhat lengthy meals was greater in 1996 than in 1986.

c) The average number of Americans dining out per month tends to decline whenever table occupancy rates increase.

d) The number of meals served between 1986 and 1991 was fewer than the number of meals served between 1991 and 1996.

e) The more tables a restaurant has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be

lassakul · Answer

I chose (A):

We know that on average:
(1) Time spent occupying restaurant tables rose
(2) While total meals consumed declined

Therefore, customers are spending more time eating at resto tables per meals - offsetting the impact of fewer meals being consumed each month.

What if customers spent the same amount of time eating? 
Occupancy would have to decline to reflect less time spent eating fewer total meals consumed each month

Other answer choices:

b) The proportion of very lengthy meals to somewhat lengthy meals was greater in 1996 than in 1986.
 We know customers must be spending more time eating on average, but nothing is stated regarding magnitude or distribution of time spent

c) The average number of Americans dining out per month tends to decline whenever table occupancy rates increase.
  Irrelevant - None of this is suggested or required for the condition to hold

d) The number of meals served between 1986 and 1991 was fewer than the number of meals served between 1991 and 1996.
 This is opposite to what is stated

e) The more tables a restaurant has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be
 Irrelevant - Nothing is stated

aragonn · Answer

Question Explanation:

Fact 1: Between 1986 and 1996, the restaurant industry average table occupancy rate (i.e., percent of the time that a table was occupied) rose from 74 percent to 81 percent.

Fact 2: Between 1986 and 1996, the number of meals eaten out by Americans declined from an average of 212 meals out per month per 1,000 people to 195 meals out per month per 1,000 people.

The phrase which of the following conclusions can be most properly drawn in the question stem indicates that this is a Resolve/Explain question. The fact that the restaurant industry average table occupancy rate (i.e., percent of the time that a table was occupied) rose from 74 percent to 81 percent between 1986 and 1996 seems like it should correspond with a similar increase in the number of meals eaten out by Americans. However, the number of meals eaten out by Americans declined from an average of 212 meals out per month per 1,000 people to 195 meals out per month per 1,000 people over the same time period.

For an answer choice to explain the discrepancy, it must provide a reason that the number of meals eaten out by Americans per month declined from 1986 to 1996, while the restaurant industry average table occupancy rate increased from 74 percent to 81 percent in the same period. Evaluate the answer choices, looking for one that reflects this idea.

Choice A: Correct. If The average amount of time spent per meal by Americans eating out increased between 1991 and 1996, then diners would be occupying restaurant tables for longer time periods. This would provide a reason that table occupancy rates increased from 1991 to 1996, while meals eaten out by Americans per month decreased.

Choice B: No. This answer choice addresses only one side of the conflict. Even if The proportion of very lengthy meals to somewhat lengthy meals was greater in 1996 than 1986, there is no corresponding information regarding how this relates to all meals of all lengths.

Choice C: No. This answer choice is out of scope. Even if The average number of Americans dining out per month tends to decline whenever table occupancy rates increase, there is no information regarding how this relates specifically to the 1986 to 1996 data in question.

Choice D: No. This answer choice addresses only one side of the conflict. The number of meals served could limit the number of meals eaten out by Americans, but it would have no impact on the average table occupancy rate.

Choice E: No. This answer choice addresses only one side of the conflict. Even if The more tables a restaurant has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be is true, there is no corresponding information about how this relates to the number of meals eaten out by Americans.

The correct answer is choice A.

sargam0101 · Answer

in option D, how serving fewer meals will have no impact on occupancy rate. It should decline (going by the same logic applied in option a)

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  sargam0101 . You have to be careful (in both these types of Verbal questions and in Quant) not to confuse  an average  and  a number . The passage only provides information about the  number of meals...  per 1000 people   during both periods. To keep matters simple, perhaps between 1986 and 1991,  exactly  1000 Americans dined out each month and ordered 212 meals in each month; between 1991 and 1996, the same 1000 Americans dined out each month and ordered 195 meals in each month.

1000*212*12>1000*195*12

We do not actually have to do the math to appreciate that what answer choice (D) says could be false. The number of meals served could have been greater over the course of the earlier period. But in choice (A), we are comparing an average to an average—amount of time spent—and the passage provides this exact information to corroborate the statement. Choice (A) is unassailable.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew

nayas96 · Answer

The question mentions about the average occupancy rate between 1991 to 1996 increased to 81 percent. It mentions "average", for all we know it can be that it was the highest in 1991 and lower in 1996 and overall, the average increased to 81 percent from 74 percent

Kindly please clarify my query

Posted from my mobile device

Kindly please clarify my query

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Between 1986 and 1991, the restaurant industry saw an average table

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

Between 1986 and 1991, the restaurant industry saw an average table

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