Critical Reasoning

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.

[spoiler]OA:C[/spoiler]
I chose D as it looked ok to me. What am i missing? Please explain.

satishchandra wrote: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,re would be no view except of other tall tables.

[spoiler]OA:C[/spoiler]
I chose D as it looked ok to me. What am i missing? Please explain.

This arguments exhibits a SCOPE SHIFT.
The premise is a generalization: diners seated at stools TYPICALLY do not stay as long.
The conclusion is about a specific situation: if the HOLLYWOOD replaced some of its seating with stools, the restaurant would increase its profits.

The passage links what diners TYPICALLY do to what diners at the HOLLYWOOD would do.
This connection is valid only if the diners at the HOLLYWOOD are TYPICAL.
To break the link, the correct answer will show that the diners at the Hollywood are NOT typical.

Answer choice C: a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
Answer choice C states that the diners at the Hollywood are an EXCEPTION: that sitting at taller tables will NOT induce them to stay for less time. And the passage offers the likely reason: many customers come to watch the celebrities. Since the stools would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers would likely stay LONGER.

I received a PM about answer choice D. Since we have no idea how much profit -- if any -- is derived from meals served at the Hollywood, the selling price of the meals is irrelevant. For all we know, most of the profits at the Hollywood come from selling BEVERAGES, not meals.

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.


According to me option C actually strengthens the argument. It says that the customer who sits at the tall table would actually be an exception to the generalisation about lingering that means that the customer will not actually linger and wait for longer duration.

So this statement actually strengthens the argument. What do you feel guyzzzz!!!!!!!

Please help...

GMATGuruNY wrote: I received a PM about answer choice D. Since we have no idea how much profit -- if any -- is derived from meals served at the Hollywood, the selling price of the meals is irrelevant. For all we know, most of the profits at the Hollywood come from selling BEVERAGES, not meals.

Dear Mitch,

I would like to know how you know that the profits at the Hollywood come from selling BEVERAGES. I have reviewed the prompt and no mention to beverage.

Can you elaborate?

Thanks

Mo2men wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: I received a PM about answer choice D. Since we have no idea how much profit -- if any -- is derived from meals served at the Hollywood, the selling price of the meals is irrelevant. For all we know, most of the profits at the Hollywood come from selling BEVERAGES, not meals.

Dear Mitch,

I would like to know how you know that the profits at the Hollywood come from selling BEVERAGES. I have reviewed the prompt and no mention to beverage.

Can you elaborate?

Thanks

The expression in blue -- for all we know -- implies that there is a LIMIT to ALL WE KNOW.
In other words, we don't know everything.
The phrase for all we know can be replaced with it is possible that.
Thus, my statement above conveys the following meaning:
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT most of the profits at the Hollywood come from selling beverages.
By extension, it is possible that little profit is generated from meal sales, rendering the information in D irrelevant.
Eliminate D.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Answer choice C: a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
Answer choice C states that the diners at the Hollywood are an EXCEPTION: that sitting at taller tables will NOT induce them to stay for less time. And the passage offers the likely reason: many customers come to watch the celebrities. Since the stools would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers would likely stay LONGER.

Hi Mitch,
For the very reason mentioned in RED, isn't the Option A also a close choice ?

Could you please clarify ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Answer choice C: a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
Answer choice C states that the diners at the Hollywood are an EXCEPTION: that sitting at taller tables will NOT induce them to stay for less time. And the passage offers the likely reason: many customers come to watch the celebrities. Since the stools would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers would likely stay LONGER.

Hi Mitch,
For the very reason mentioned in RED, isn't the Option A also a close choice ?

Could you please clarify ?

some = at least one.
Option A, rephrased:
At least one celebrity comes to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at a tall table if it were available.
Information about one celebrity is insufficient to weaken the conclusion.
Moreover, the proximity of celebrities sitting among customers at the tall tables could induce more people to visit the Hollywood, possibly STRENTHENGING the conclusion that profits will increase.
Since the correct answer choice must clearly WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate A.

GMATGuruNY wrote:some = at least one.
Option A, rephrased:
At least one celebrity comes to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at a tall table if it were available.
Information about one celebrity is insufficient to weaken the conclusion.

OK.Got this part!

GMATGuruNY wrote:Moreover, the proximity of celebrities sitting among customers at the tall tables could induce more people to visit the Hollywood, possibly STRENTHENGING the conclusion that profits will increase.
Since the correct answer choice must clearly WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate A.

I hear you here...but can we really draw such reasoning because "proximity of celebrities" may also induce (as you've cited in your reasoning for the OA) diners to sit longer since they'll get BETTER view of the celebrities! Thus, in this way A seems to be WEAKENING the CONCLUSION!

Please clarify.

P.S: Anyway, Option A is pretty weird, I guess, as it can be interpreted more than one way and thus may STRENGTHEN the CONCLUSION in one way and WEAKEN it in other way.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Moreover, the proximity of celebrities sitting among customers at the tall tables could induce more people to visit the Hollywood, possibly STRENTHENGING the conclusion that profits will increase.
Since the correct answer choice must clearly WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate A.

I hear you here...but can we really draw such reasoning because "proximity of celebrities" may also induce (as you've cited in your reasoning for the OA) diners to sit longer since they'll get BETTER view of the celebrities! Thus, in this way A seems to be WEAKENING the CONCLUSION!

Please clarify.

Answer choice A suggests that the Hollywood could run the following advertisement in the local paper:
Celebrities wanting to be seen are flocking to the newly-installed tall tables at the Hollywood. So if you want to dine inches away from Tom Cruise, head to the Hollywood!
The information above would likely lead to an increase in the number of customers who frequent the Hollywood.
Generally, more customers = higher profits.
Since the correct answer must WEAKEN the conclusion that profits will increase, eliminate A.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:"proximity of celebrities" may also induce (as you've cited in your reasoning for the OA) diners to sit longer since they'll get BETTER view of the celebrities! Thus, in this way A seems to be WEAKENING the CONCLUSION!

Please clarify.

P.S: Anyway, Option A is pretty weird, I guess, as it can be interpreted more than one way and thus may STRENGTHEN the CONCLUSION in one way and WEAKEN it in other way.

Answer choice A suggests that the Hollywood could run the following advertisement in the local paper:
Celebrities wanting to be seen are flocking to the newly-installed tall tables at the Hollywood. So if you want to dine inches away from Tom Cruise, head to the Hollywood!
The information above would likely lead to an increase in the number of customers who frequent the Hollywood.
Generally, more customers = higher profits.
Since the correct answer must WEAKEN the conclusion that profits will increase, eliminate A.

Well, I get you here...but curious to know that whether the OTHER way of interpreting Option A, as I did in the above quote, will hold any substance ?

Could you please quickly share your thoughts on my possible interpretation of Option A ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:curious to know that whether the OTHER way of interpreting Option A, as I did in the above quote, will hold any substance ?

Could you please quickly share your thoughts on my possible interpretation of Option A ?

Option A is not a viable weakener.

A:
Why will profits not increase?
Because some celebrities...might choose to sit at the tall tables.
The logic here is unclear.
There is no indication why a few celebrities sitting at the tall tables will prevent an increase in profits.
Eliminate A.

OA:
Why will profits not increase?
Because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
The logic here is crystal clear:
If customers linger at the tall tables -- if they stay as long as diners at standard-height tables -- then the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

GMATGuruNY wrote:Option A is not a viable weakener.

A:
Why will profits not increase?
Because some celebrities...might choose to sit at the tall tables.
The logic here is unclear.
There is no indication why a few celebrities sitting at the tall tables will prevent an increase in profits.
Eliminate A.

Really having tough time to get this straight...
With reference to the RED part in your above quote, isn't it logical to to say that since the tall tables would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers/diners would likely stay LONGER -- they won't likely turn down the opportunity to dine with inches away from the celebrities. Thus, Option A in this way seems to weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

How it's wrong ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:OA:
Why will profits not increase?
Because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
The logic here is crystal clear:
If customers linger at the tall tables -- if they stay as long as diners at standard-height tables -- then the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

This is fine. However, if we interpret OA in the following way, then will that interpretation also be correct ?

OA implies that diners who generally linger won't sit at the tall tables (because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the lingering), rather will continue lingering sitting at the existing standard-height tables. Therefore, the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

Thoughts please!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Option A is not a viable weakener.

A:
Why will profits not increase?
Because some celebrities...might choose to sit at the tall tables.
The logic here is unclear.
There is no indication why a few celebrities sitting at the tall tables will prevent an increase in profits.
Eliminate A.

Really having tough time to get this straight...
With reference to the RED part in your above quote, isn't it logical to to say that since the tall tables would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers/diners would likely stay LONGER -- they won't likely turn down the opportunity to dine with inches away from the celebrities. Thus, Option A in this way seems to weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

How it's wrong ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:OA:
Why will profits not increase?
Because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.
The logic here is crystal clear:
If customers linger at the tall tables -- if they stay as long as diners at standard-height tables -- then the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

This is fine. However, if we interpret OA in the following way, then will that interpretation also be correct ?

OA implies that diners who generally linger won't sit at the tall tables (because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the lingering), rather will continue lingering sitting at the existing standard-height tables. Therefore, the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

Thoughts please!

I'll leave it to Mitch to explain the details here, but generally speaking, I find it helpful to translate "some" as "at least one." So "some" is a pretty weak work.

An example argument: Dave makes the best lemonade in the tri-state area. His prices are reasonable, and his salesman-charisma is second to none. Therefore, Dave will be a wealthy lemonade mogul.

A lousy weakener: some people in the tri-state area don't like lemonade. All this means is that there's at least one person, somewhere in the vicinity who doesn't like lemonade. We don't need an answer choice to tell us this, and we're surely provided no deep insight into the viability of Dave's business.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Option A is not a viable weakener.

A:
Why will profits not increase?
Because some celebrities...might choose to sit at the tall tables.
The logic here is unclear.
There is no indication why a few celebrities sitting at the tall tables will prevent an increase in profits.
Eliminate A.

Really having tough time to get this straight...
With reference to the RED part in your above quote, isn't it logical to to say that since the tall tables would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers/diners would likely stay LONGER -- they won't likely turn down the opportunity to dine with inches away from the celebrities. Thus, Option A in this way seems to weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

How it's wrong ?

Case 1: The proximity of celebrities will induce customers to linger.
Case 2: Diners at the tall tables will be so uncomfortable that they leave quickly, DESPITE the proximity of celebrities.
There is no information to support your assumption that Case 1 is more likely than Case 2, especially since -- according to the passage -- diners seated on stools typically do NOT stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

if we interpret OA in the following way, then will that interpretation also be correct ?

OA implies that diners who generally linger won't sit at the tall tables (because a customer at a tall table would be an exception to the lingering), rather will continue lingering sitting at the existing standard-height tables. Therefore, the tall tables serve no purpose, weakening the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

Thoughts please!

This line of reasoning is invalid.
The passage states the following rule:
Diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
If diners at the Hollywood constitute an exception to this rule, then they must do the OPPOSITE of this rule:
Diners seated on stools at the Hollywood WILL stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.
The OA does not imply that diners at the Hollywood who want to linger will avoid the tall tables.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:Option A is not a viable weakener.

A:
Why will profits not increase?
Because some celebrities...might choose to sit at the tall tables.
The logic here is unclear.
There is no indication why a few celebrities sitting at the tall tables will prevent an increase in profits.
Eliminate A.

Really having tough time to get this straight...
With reference to the RED part in your above quote, isn't it logical to to say that since the tall tables would afford a BETTER view of the celebrities, the customers/diners would likely stay LONGER -- they won't likely turn down the opportunity to dine with inches away from the celebrities. Thus, Option A in this way seems to weaken the conclusion that the tall tables will lead to higher profits.

How it's wrong ?

Case 1: The proximity of celebrities will induce customers to linger.
Case 2: Diners at the tall tables will be so uncomfortable that they leave quickly, DESPITE the proximity of celebrities.
There is no information to support your assumption that Case 1 is more likely than Case 2, especially since -- according to the passage -- diners seated on stools typically do NOT stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

I think, according to the passage, Case 1 is supported by they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities, whereas Case 2 is supported by diners seated on stools typically do NOT stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

Therefore, we can't clearly decide which case (between case 1 & 2) will likely be more dominant and thus A doesn't turn out to be a good answer choice. In fact, Option A seems to be pretty weird, I guess, as it swings either way -- can be a WEAKENER or a STRENGTHENER, depending on the Case 1 or 2.

Right ?