Critical Reasoning

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.

What is the answer?

I will go for E that makes the argument vulnerable.

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

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

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

d doesnt weaken it..
i'll go with e