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 --> "Some" does not make much of a difference here. Besides the point is about profits, from the point of view of customers. At best, this supports the conclusion, because celebrities preferring tall tables can only augur well for the customers who want to see them.

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 --> Customer order meals. We do not even know whether celebs do.

C. a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering --> Goes against the premise.

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 --> Bingo! The assumption in the argument is that the customers who do stay for long, block the tables and cannot compensate for the "loss". What if, their staying back longer makes them order expensive food, that compensates for their staying over longer (and not allowing new customers to take over)?

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 --> Point is about profits. Not "views".

IMO (D).

OA is option D