A restaurant owner plans to replace the restaurant's tables and chairs

Question

A restaurant owner plans to replace the restaurant's tables and chairs, which are currently of a generic design, with sturdier models from a manufacturer in Maine. The newer tables and chairs are more expensive, but they are extremely durable, so the owner expects to have to replace them far less frequently, saving money in the long term.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument presented above?

A. The amount of money the owner has already spent on the current set of tables and chairs

B. The degree to which the new tables and chairs fit the ambience of the restaurant

C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run

D. The degree to which tables and chairs of the newer design are more carefully manufactured than those of the old design

E. The number of customers visiting the restaurant on a weekly basis

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

tgsankar10 · Answer

Conclusion : owner expects to have to replace them far less frequently, saving money in the long term

Since we need to evaluate the argument, we should find cases which would impact the conclusion much.

A:  NO . Money already spent has no impact in the long term
B:  NO . Tables and chairs' suitability is not relevant for saving money from replacing less frequently

C: Correct.  Price and availability of the new design in the long run impact long-term savings. Hence, this should be studied and compared with old designs

D:  NO . Method of manufacturing is very generalised. Neither durability nor price is discussed here. Hence becomes irrelevant
E:  NO . Number of customers visiting per week does not explain directly anything related to the furniture.

bronaugust · Answer

As a solver, you must first figure out what the question requires you to do. Without any doubt, you are choose an answer option that actually must be studied to evaluate the argument that is presented. Now that you know you are dealing with an evaluation question, you shall figure out what the presented argument is. The author is saying that the the owner, despite the fact that the newer tables and chairs are more expensive than the ones in use, expects to replace them far less frequently since they are extremely durable. And doing so would ensure he saves money in the long term. Now that you know what the argument is, you need to know what the right answer option should be doing. In an evaluation question, the right answer option should, well, be evaluative. It must deal with a situation that can help us conclude whether or not the argument will stand strong. All answer options that go beyond the scope of the argument can be eliminated along with very extreme answer options. Now, let us eliminate the incorrect answer options.

A. The amount of money the owner has already spent on the current set of tables and chairs -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  The argument deals with the future, so any info about money already spent is irrelevant  -    ELIMINATE

B. The degree to which the new tables and chairs fit the ambience of the restaurant -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about the ambience of the restaurant  -    ELIMINATE

C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run -   EVALUATIVE   -  Note that this answer option deals with both price and availability in the future (long run). If the price and availability of new designs are going to be dependable to a very good degree in the long run, the owner's decision will help him save money; however, if the old designs' price and availability are going to be dependable to a good degree and not the new designs', the author may as well end up losing money instead of saving on account of the decision he made.-     KEEP

D. The degree to which tables and chairs of the newer design are more carefully manufactured than those of the old design -  OUT OF SCOPE  -  Not worried about whether or not the tables and chairs are manufactured carefully  -    ELIMINATE

E. The number of customers visiting the restaurant on a weekly basis -  OUT OF SCOPE  -  Not worried about the number of customers visiting the restaurant  -    ELIMINATE

Hence, C has to be the right answer.

captain0612 · Answer

IMO Choice C

Restaurant Owner plan - Replace existing tables and chairs with sturdy and expensive new ones.
Restaurant Owner Conclusion - End goal is to save money in the long term, since the newer expensive ones are extremely durable.

Question type - Evaluate.

For evaluate type questions, we want to select a choice that makes and breaks the conclusion, depending on the response to the choice/ evaluation.

A. The amount of money the owner has already spent on the current set of tables and chairs  The money spent on the current ones would not tell us anything about the newer ones or how the newer fare against the current ones, since all we are concerened is about the long term financial savings  Incorrect

B. The degree to which the new tables and chairs fit the ambience of the restaurant  We are not told how the fit would impact the financials. hence out of scope or rather based on this evaluation we cannot say whether the owner could save money in the long term or not  Incorrect

C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run    Correct  Let's say that the price and availability are equally dependable then we are sure that based on the plan the owner is going to save money in the long term, but on the other hand if price and availability are not equally dependable then it is slightly challenging to believe in the owner's reasoning since price may increase drastically in the future rendering the restaurant unable to bear increased costs. Depending on the anser to the evaluation it makes/ breaks the conclusion of the restaurant owner.

D. The degree to which tables and chairs of the newer design are more carefully manufactured than those of the old design  What does carefully mean? We already know that the newer ones are extremely durable  Incorrect

E. The number of customers visiting the restaurant on a weekly basis We cannot deduce anything just by knowing the number.  Just numbers would not help us here. It is better to know the trend before and after installation of the new furniture, painting a better picture on the restaurant owner's plan and long term saving  Incorrect

Legenddary1234 · Answer

IMO C

The argument presented by the restaurant owner is based on the premise that the newer, sturdier tables and chairs, though more expensive upfront, will lead to long-term savings due to their increased durability and the reduced frequency of replacements needed. To evaluate this argument, it is essential to analyze the elements that directly impact the financial and functional outcomes of this investment.

A. The amount of money the owner has already spent on the current set of tables and chairs - This information, while useful for understanding past expenses, does not directly impact the future cost-benefit analysis of purchasing more durable furniture. The past cost is a sunk cost and should not influence future investment decisions.

B. The degree to which the new tables and chairs fit the ambience of the restaurant - While the aesthetic and thematic fit of the furniture is important for the overall customer experience, it does not directly relate to the argument concerning the financial benefits derived from the durability of the furniture.

C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run - This option addresses the core of the argument. The evaluation of the financial rationale behind investing in more expensive but durable furniture necessitates an understanding of whether the costs and availability of both the old and new furniture designs will remain stable or vary significantly over time. If the cost or availability of the newer design becomes unfavorable in the future, the projected long-term savings might not materialize as expected.

D. The degree to which tables and chairs of the newer design are more carefully manufactured than those of the old design - Although manufacturing quality relates to durability, this option is more about the process quality rather than a direct comparison of the long-term financial benefits and costs, which are more central to the argument.

E. The number of customers visiting the restaurant on a weekly basis - Customer traffic is relevant to overall business performance but does not directly influence the specific argument about the cost-effectiveness of more durable furniture unless it directly affects the wear and tear of the furniture.

Based on this analysis, the most relevant option to study in order to evaluate the argument effectively is: C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run. This option directly impacts the financial analysis necessary to justify or refute the owner's expectation of long-term savings.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Reading the question: supposing we don't see a flaw, we can jump straight to a logical proof. The answer choices are not statements, so we can't negate them, but they can be evaluated by analysis by extreme cases to detect impact on the argument. Answer choices that represent variable ranges or amounts are suited to analysis by cases.

Logical proof: we look at (A). Extreme case: the owner has spent a lot of money on the current set. That doesn't impact the ability to save in the long run. We're more interested in how expensive they are relative to the cost of the new ones given how often the old ones need to be replaced and how often the new ones need to be replaced. That, in fact, might be the answer. With that expectation in mind, we eliminate everything except (C). Is (C) critical? Yes; we can complete the analysis by cases. If the new designs will go up in price and/or go out of production, the plan will fail. If they don't, the plan may succeed.

The correct answer is (C).

SirSanguine · Answer

Hi,  b_sudharsan

Can you please help me with the following querries: 
B. The degree to which the new tables and chairs   fit the ambience of the restaurant   -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about the ambience of the restaurant  - ELIMINATE

The very reason for replacing the furniture is that it has become "Generic" not sturdiness or availability I think this option is valid.

C. The degree to which the price and availability of the new designs and those of the old designs are equally dependable in the long run

Why a comparision between new design and old desing should affect the decission? Only new designs should be considered.

You resposnse is appreciated!

A restaurant owner plans to replace the restaurant's tables and chairs

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

A restaurant owner plans to replace the restaurant's tables and chairs

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