At present the hollywood restaurant

simplyjat · Last edited by simplyjat on Tue May 06, 2008 8:21 am; edited 3 times in total

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.

Question: 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 of the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

The source of the question is doubtful and I do not agree with the OA or OE...

zacharyz · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:53 am Post subject:

What is the official answer? I would go with (C)

punit.kaur.mba · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: Holllywood restaurant

In my opinion Ans is C.

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

Wrong - The question is about seating the customers not celebrities

B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the hollywood compensates for the longer itme, if any, they spend lingering over their meals

Wrong - Nobody talks about meals ordered by celebrities and it doesn't weaken the stated argument in any way

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

Right - This argument is vulnerable to the criticism that, there could be exceptional customers who might prefer sitting on taller stools as opposed to 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

Wrong - This might weaken the argument to some extent but We are not sure what the customers would order. Also the argument doesnt mention anything about the meals ordered by customers, so its out of scope.

E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all of the hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

Wrong- Its completely irrelevant. The argument s conclusion is about the profits that the restaurant would make based on customers seating. not about being able to accomodate all the customers.

Please let me know if you think my analysis is wrong.

simplyjat · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:18 am Post subject:

We have to explicitly concentrate on assumption and not the premises. The question directly states the premises "many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the hollywood". What C states is directly opposite of the specified premises.

punit.kaur.mba · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject:

I am not sure if I understood... could you please elaborate? I am trying to solve CR questions these days... so would like to know what approach needs to be used...
Thanks

amitansu · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:47 am Post subject:

I will go with E.

Visibilty would go down (with such seating as stated in choice E) , there by discouraging customers to come to see celebrities.

zacharyz · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject:

Simplyjat - I know you question the source of the material, but what is the answer supposed to be?

Per your last statement, I still believe that C is correct.

The premise is that the Hollywood's customers want stools to sit on and the Hollywood should do it because typically people at high tables and stools turn over more quickly, making more money. It is faulty because they give reason for this generalization to not be true (namely these customers want the high tables so they can celebrity-watch).

So the argument was that the Hollywood could make more money, but that is not really going to happen based on their customers' plans.

zacharyz · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject:

simplyjat - I may have typed too quickly. You were just explaining C to another post, not arguing a different conclusion about (C).

simplyjat · Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject:

Riggz · Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:

I believe D is the answer. Conclusion is that Hollywoods profits will increase by replacing its seating with high tables and stools.
We are asked to find the answer which weakens this conclusion.

D weakens this conclusion by saying that customers who spend time on these stools and high tables order less expensive meals and thus profits would not increase.

kumareswark · Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:48 am Post subject:

I think answer is D.

Conclusion - replacing SOME chairs to tall chairs would INCREASE profits.

D - exposes the weakness by stating that replacing chairs would also reduce spending by customers hence the reduction in profits.

sukrant26 · Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject:

What is the answer?

I will go for E that makes the argument vulnerable.