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: Will be posted later. Please discuss each option in detail[/spoiler]

a wordy question stem, but it asks to weaken.

The argument can be weaken if....
C is my pick.

It assumes the customer will not linger(stay longer).

aspirant2011 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, there would be no view except of other tall tables

Hi!

"vulnerable to criticism" in the stem indicates that we have a logical flaw question. Flaw questions are fairly rare on the GMAT, but they do show up occasionally. However, since flaw questions are very closely related to weakening questions, the most common CR question type, there's no need to panic when you see one.

The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true.

In both cases, we want to deconstruct the argument.

Conclusion: swapping to some high tables and stools would increase the restaurant's profits.

Evidence 1: celebrity watchers would prefer taller tables and stools.

Evidence 2: typical sitters on stools don't stay as long as other diners.

For an argument to be valid, everything needs to be matched up. For this particular argument to be persuasive, the author has to be assuming that celebrity watchers are typical stool-sitters.

However, since the whole reason these people are at the restaurant is to look for celebrities, common sense leads us to believe that celebrity watchers are NOT just going to eat and run and are, therefore, atypical.

(C) is a perfect match for our prediction: choose (C)!

Though I chosen B but come to see that

"in B the price meals are ordered by celebrities rather than the customers and hence wrong"

whether my reasoning for B is right? Please clarify.

thanks a lot stuart for your nice explanation

ranjeet75 wrote:Though I chosen B but come to see that

"in B the price meals are ordered by celebrities rather than the customers and hence wrong"

whether my reasoning for B is right? Please clarify.

Correct - the argument is focused on the impact of the tables on the celebrity watchers, not the celebrities.

@Stuart :

However, since the whole reason these people are at the restaurant is to look for celebrities, common sense leads us to believe that celebrity watchers are NOT just going to eat and run and are, therefore, atypical.

Could you explain the above part you have written. I can't relate how it helps with C .

GMATMadeEasy wrote:@Stuart :

However, since the whole reason these people are at the restaurant is to look for celebrities, common sense leads us to believe that celebrity watchers are NOT just going to eat and run and are, therefore, atypical.

Could you explain the above part you have written. I can't relate how it helps with C .

Hi!

the author's main support for increased profits is that people who sit at the stools/high tables typically take less time to eat.

However, in this specific case, the whole reason that many of the diners attend the restaurant is to look for and observe celebrities. Do we expect these particular customers to eat and run? No - if their whole purpose is to celebrity watch, then these customers are more likely to eat slowly, paying attention to the celebrities rather than their food.

So, since the specific customers of this restaurant do not match "typical" stool-sitters, the author can't properly use evidence about typical tool-sitters to draw a conclusion about this particular restaurant.

In more general terms: when an author uses evidence about a general group to draw a conclusion about a specific group, the author is assuming that the general group is representative of the specific group.

For a strengthening question, look for an answer that shows that the specific group is just like the general group.

For a weakening question, look for an answer that shows that the specific group is different from the general group.

For a flaw question (much rarer), look for an answer that simply states that the specific group may be atypical.

@ Stuart Kovinsky

Can you please explain whats wrong with D

ankurmit wrote:@ Stuart Kovinsky

Can you please explain whats wrong with D

Hi,

let's look at the exact wording of the question stem:

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that...

and 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

Does the argument itself give us reason to believe that D is true? Definitely not, since there's no mention of anything related to D. So, D can't be the right answer to this question.

However, if the question had been:

Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument above?

then D would have been correct.

A common trap on the GMAT is the "right answer to the wrong question", which is why it's vital to ensure that you understand the question stem (and predicting the answer) before going on to the choices.

Hi Stuart,

I thought that 'vulnerable to criticism' quistions are same as 'weeken the argument' quistions and selected D.

How are these quistions different from 'weeken the argument' quistions?
can you pls explain .

Already answered by Stuart.thanks

"The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true"

Stuart! i got C right! but ur explanation for the option was brilliant!

@Stuart Kovinsky : Thanks Stuart for detailed reply. I see what you mean.

Question: E also suffers the same issue as D ? that is if it were weaken question, it could be a right choice ? because if E were true, then customers wont be able to have a view of celebrities and hence, wont be meeting their objective of coing to those restaurants. This might lead to less frequent visits to the restaurant. Am i right in my reasoning ?