Critical Reasoning

GMATGuruNY wrote:

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.

Got it. Thanks!

Just a quick question on the difference between "At least one customer"/"One customer" and "a customer" -

I think, the first TWO phrases BOTH can mean any one specific customer,whereas the latter phrase means any customer in general. Am I correct ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote: Case 1: The proximity of celebrities will induce customers to linger.

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

Case 1 is not supported by the blue portion.
Common sense tells us that the better view in the blue portion refers to the following:
Diners at the tall tables will be seated HIGHER than any celebrities at standard-height tables, affording these diners a BETTER VIEW of the celebrities.
The better view in the blue portion does not refer to the proximity of the celebrities.

Case 1 refers to an ALTERNATE benefit of the tall tables, as follows:
Customers come to the Hollywood to see celebrities.
Option A indicates that the tall tables will attract some celebrities -- a potential BENEFIT of the tall tables.
Since A implies a potential benefit of the tall tables -- and the correct answer choice must WEAKEN the conclusion that the tall tables will increase profits -- eliminate A.

Got you now!

Could you please shed some light on this aspect - https://www.beatthegmat.com/tough-cr-t10 ... tml#790944 ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Just a quick question on the difference between "At least one customer"/"One customer" and "a customer" -

I think, the first TWO phrases BOTH can mean any one specific customer,whereas the latter phrase means any customer in general. Am I correct ?

Correct.
at least one customer at the Hollywood = one or more specific customers at the Hollywood.
one customer at the Hollywood = one specific customer at the Hollywood.
a customer at the Hollywood = ANY customer at the Hollywood.

@ Mitch - with reference to the above discussion, could you please clarify what does "at least some" imply in GMAT CR ?

I mean, does it have the same meaning as "at least one" phrase or different meaning ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@ Mitch - with reference to the above discussion, could you please clarify what does "at least some" imply in GMAT CR ?

I mean, does it have the same meaning as "at least one" phrase or different meaning ?

some = at least one but not all.
at least some = at least one and possibly all.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@ Mitch - with reference to the above discussion, could you please clarify what does "at least some" imply in GMAT CR ?

I mean, does it have the same meaning as "at least one" phrase or different meaning ?

some = at least one but not all.
at least some = at least one and possibly all.

Don't get you on this -- how "at least some" can mean the above ? Could you please elaborate ?

If we say that "at least some" means at least one OR possibly all, then will it not be correct ? Please clarify!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@ Mitch - with reference to the above discussion, could you please clarify what does "at least some" imply in GMAT CR ?

I mean, does it have the same meaning as "at least one" phrase or different meaning ?

some = at least one but not all.
at least some = at least one and possibly all.

Don't get you on this -- how "at least some" can mean the above ? Could you please elaborate ?

If we say that "at least some" means at least one OR possibly all, then will it not be correct ? Please clarify!

at least X means X OR MORE THAN X.
Thus:
at least some means SOME OR MORE THAN SOME.
Since more than some = all, we get:
at least some means SOME OR ALL.

GMATGuruNY wrote: at least X means X OR MORE THAN X.
Thus:
at least some means SOME OR MORE THAN SOME.
Since more than some = all, we get:
at least some means SOME OR ALL.

So, we can conclude that

some means at least one OR more (but not all).
at least some means SOME(=at least one) OR ALL.

Right ?

Hi GMATGuruNY,
Could you please quickly confirm whether my above understanding (on your last post) is proper ?

Look forward to hear from you so that I can come up with my follow-up concern related to this concept.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
Could you please quickly confirm whether my above understanding (on your last post) is proper ?

Look forward to hear from you so that I can come up with my follow-up concern related to this concept.

Your understanding seems correct.

some= at least one OR more (but not all).
at least some means SOME(=at least one) OR ALL.

Hi GMATGuruNY,
Thanks for confirming.

On the basis of the above understanding, my concern is:
As we've discussed earlier in this thread, Option A of the CR at hand (re Hollywood Restaurant) can be eliminated because "Information about one celebrity is insufficient to weaken the conclusion" since some = at least one.

For the similar LOGIC in BLUE, how we can consider the Option A of this CR (https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-proposed-c ... 92755.html) to be the CORRECT answer ? Here also, some = at least one concept should be applied similarly as in the 1st CR!

Where's the catch ?

For the similar LOGIC in BLUE, how we can consider the Option A of this CR (https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-proposed-c ... 92755.html) to be the CORRECT answer ? Here also, some = at least one concept should be applied similarly as in the 1st CR!

Where's the catch ?

Very important to bear in mind that we'd treat a word such as "some" very differently in a STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN question than we would in an ASSUMPTION question.

Take a simple conclusion, for example: Company X will soon go out of business.

If we wanted to strengthen this claim, an answer that read "some consumers don't wish to purchase Company X's products," would be pretty lousy. The world's most successful business will have at least one person who isn't interested in its products. The statement doesn't tell us anything new.

If, however, we wanted an assumption, that same answer "some consumers don't wish to purchase X's products," now makes a lot of sense. If the business is failing, surely it isn't the case that everyone on earth is interested in its products, right? The statement is telling us something that is almost certainly true.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

For the similar LOGIC in BLUE, how we can consider the Option A of this CR (https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-proposed-c ... 92755.html) to be the CORRECT answer ? Here also, some = at least one concept should be applied similarly as in the 1st CR!

Where's the catch ?

Very important to bear in mind that we'd treat a word such as "some" very differently in a STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN question than we would in an ASSUMPTION question.

Take a simple conclusion, for example: Company X will soon go out of business.

If we wanted to strengthen this claim, an answer that read "some consumers don't wish to purchase Company X's products," would be pretty lousy. The world's most successful business will have at least one person who isn't interested in its products. The statement doesn't tell us anything new.

If, however, we wanted an assumption, that same answer "some consumers don't wish to purchase X's products," now makes a lot of sense. If the business is failing, surely it isn't the case that everyone on earth is interested in its products, right? The statement is telling us something that is almost certainly true.

That's really an IMPORTANT classification of "some" in GMAT CR! Much thanks Dave.

Couple of quick questions-

1. Is this STANDARD (re such classification of "some") mostly/generally adhered to in GMAT CR ?

2. So basically,unlike ASSUMPTION question, in STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN question, we consider "some" AT LEAST ONE.

However,in ASSUMPTION question it's clearly NOT the case (rather considered MORE THAN ONE). Did I get you right ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

For the similar LOGIC in BLUE, how we can consider the Option A of this CR (https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-proposed-c ... 92755.html) to be the CORRECT answer ? Here also, some = at least one concept should be applied similarly as in the 1st CR!

Where's the catch ?

Very important to bear in mind that we'd treat a word such as "some" very differently in a STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN question than we would in an ASSUMPTION question.

Take a simple conclusion, for example: Company X will soon go out of business.

If we wanted to strengthen this claim, an answer that read "some consumers don't wish to purchase Company X's products," would be pretty lousy. The world's most successful business will have at least one person who isn't interested in its products. The statement doesn't tell us anything new.

If, however, we wanted an assumption, that same answer "some consumers don't wish to purchase X's products," now makes a lot of sense. If the business is failing, surely it isn't the case that everyone on earth is interested in its products, right? The statement is telling us something that is almost certainly true.

That's really an IMPORTANT classification of "some" in GMAT CR! Much thanks Dave.

Couple of quick questions-

1. Is this STANDARD (re such classification of "some") mostly/generally adhered to in GMAT CR ?

2. So basically,unlike ASSUMPTION question, in STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN question, we consider "some" AT LEAST ONE.

However,in ASSUMPTION question it's clearly NOT the case (rather considered MORE THAN ONE). Did I get you right ?

To be clear, "some" is always interpreted to mean "at least one" irrespective of the question type. But the desirability of that vague language is different for Assumption questions than for Strengthen Weaken. Put another way, in an Assumption question we want something that is indisputably true given the argument. And it's hard to dispute that at least one person is doing something. In a Strengthen/Weaken question, we want something that has a powerful impact on the conclusion, and the notion that at least one person is doing something would be unlikely to have such an impact.