At present the hollywood restaurant

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:770

At present the hollywood restaurant

by simplyjat » Tue May 06, 2008 12:12 am
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...
Last edited by simplyjat on Tue May 06, 2008 7:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
simplyjat
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:11 pm
Thanked: 7 times

by zacharyz » Tue May 06, 2008 5:53 am
What is the official answer? I would go with (C)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

Holllywood restaurant

by punit.kaur.mba » Tue May 06, 2008 6:26 am
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.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:770

by simplyjat » Tue May 06, 2008 7:18 am
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.
simplyjat

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by punit.kaur.mba » Tue May 06, 2008 1:56 pm
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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:05 pm
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by amitansu » Wed May 07, 2008 3:47 am
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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:11 pm
Thanked: 7 times

by zacharyz » Wed May 07, 2008 7:53 pm
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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:11 pm
Thanked: 7 times

by zacharyz » Wed May 07, 2008 7:54 pm
simplyjat - I may have typed too quickly. You were just explaining C to another post, not arguing a different conclusion about (C).

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 423
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:770

by simplyjat » Wed May 07, 2008 9:40 pm
zacharyz wrote:simplyjat - I may have typed too quickly. You were just explaining C to another post, not arguing a different conclusion about (C).
In my previous post I was arguing against C as the solution. C can not be answer as it states opposite of what is stated in the argument premises.

Golden rule of CR is "attack the assumption". If you are attacking the premises, it seems that you consider the author, of the argument, to be untrustworthy. For example, the statement "author is a liar" will weaken every argument but that is not what is tested in CR. You have to always take for granted that premises are true, however untrue they might sound...
simplyjat

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:58 am
Thanked: 1 times

by Riggz » Fri May 09, 2008 10:47 am
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.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:59 pm

by kumareswark » Sun May 11, 2008 8:48 am
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.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 2 times

by sukrant26 » Sun May 11, 2008 12:43 pm
What is the answer?

I will go for E that makes the argument vulnerable.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:48 am
Thanked: 15 times

by durgesh79 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:19 am
Found another thread for this problem. The Question is from GMAT prep and OA is C.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-cr ... 11884.html

Legendary Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
Thanked: 82 times
Followed by:9 members
GMAT Score:720

by maihuna » Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:58 pm
Meaning of lingering is staying longer, the whole argument is about longer stay as those who stay longer buy expensive stuff, so if that is an exception to the general rule it means people who come to see hollywood actresses will leave early.

D is opposite. SO C is as
Charged up again to beat the beast :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by Prashant Ranjan » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:14 am
The argument says that: 1) Many customers come to the restaurant only to watch celebrities, and these customers would prefer tall tables to have a good view.
2) Generalization to lingering: this is represented by the word "typically". This generalization accounts for the fact that customers seating on tall tables do not linger for long and go sooner than the customers at short tables.

Conclusion: hence converting some of the short tables to tall tables would earn the restaurant profit.
(C) when accounted as true, would definitely weaken the argument. What if customers who come for the sole purpose of gawking at celebs, linger as long as the customers who seat at shorter tables. The argument would be weakened in that case.
(D) when considered with argument, it all the more strengthens the fact that customers who spend less time at their meals (those who come for the sole purpose of gawking and therefore choose the tall tables), spend less money on expensive meals. This fact all the more gives more reasons to the restaurant to convert some of the tables to tall tables (it corroborates the lingering generalization).


Thanks
Prashant