CR: hollywood restaurant

[ronybtl]

At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard height tables. However, many customers come to watch celebrities who frequent Hollywood & they prefer tall tables in stools because such seating would afford better view of the celebrities. However, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating with higher tables and stools, its profits would increase.

 

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that:

(a) Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available

(b) The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals

© A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering

(d) A restaurant's customer who spends less time at their meal typically orders less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer

(e) With enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood restaurant's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

[amitg_ind]

I would go for A. Whats the OA?

[rookie2005]

opt D

[serena1]

a and d are close

but d may or may not be correct depending on diff. in customers bills and number of customers

 

so i think a shud prevail

[amitg_ind]

whats the OA anyways?

[ronybtl]

OA is C. This is a GMATprep qn.

 

Does anyone know why C? I am baffled..

[goel]

Option C makes sense.

 

A customer who would choose to sit at a tall table would not want to leave early i.e lingering which is not good for profits because this means the tables ae not available for new customers. Whereas it is being stated that the tall tables will help with more profits. So, there is a flaw in this conclusion and statemant C highlights this flaw.

[Narnia007]

the gist of argument is

lesser time per customer at tables => more number of customers => more profits.

but if lesser time led to inexpensive dishes being ordered then profits might not rise.

so i would go with D.

 

i dont get how C can be the OA.

C says that a customer who chooses to sit is an exception to lingering. But nowhere in the argument does it say that it expects customers to only linger and not sit. It says that it expects customers to sit but only for lesser time than usual.

[ShalomFang]

the gist of argument is

lesser time per customer at tables => more number of customers => more profits.

but if lesser time led to inexpensive dishes being ordered then profits might not rise.

so i would go with D.

 

i dont get how C can be the OA.

C says that a customer who chooses to sit is an exception to lingering. But nowhere in the argument does it say that it expects customers to only linger and not sit. It says that it expects customers to sit but only for lesser time than usual.

 

About D, although less time leads to less cost, it is still possible that tall table can make more profit--for example, one standard table costs 4 min. and 10$ per meal and one tall table costs 2 min. and 8$;

within 20min--

standard table would earn 5x10=50$

tall table would earn 10x8=80$

So, D can't be definitely right.

 

But C tells us that tall table may not lead to linger less time in Hollywood, it conflicts with what the statement has told us. So C should be the OA.

[tara]

Can anyone please give a clearer explanation..still confused as why its C

[Sniper]

Can anyone please give a clearer explanation..still confused as why its C

 

looking at D, it will make me pick the same.

 

But, closer analysis shows us that we are assuming beyond info given [bIG].

How can we comment on the cost of the meals, when the whole argument is on chairs and time :p

 

From C, which is left after eliminating all except D ( which we eliminated now) , it makes sense to argue about staying longer to earn more.

[sdasar]

I see some truth in C. Does any body see any merit in E? With fewer tall stools, customers on tall stools have a clear view of celebrities and the main reason why they are popular. But if they increase the number of tall stools, it is going to obstruct the view and all they see is tall stools. This seriously undermines the popularity of the stools. If this is implemented, the additional tall stools have no value added and may even undermine people sitting on regular chairs.

[bungholio]

sdasar, i picked E too, but the statement says only few tables will be replaced with tall tables and tall stools. so there will be a designated area, with tall stools, to look at celebrities sitting at normal stools. so we cant pick this.

[am100]

Picked C..

 

"However, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables."

 

This means that people who typically sit on standard tables tend to linger. The author's conclusion is that people who sit on tall tables do not linger, so they will move fast and hence more customers for the restaurant leading to more profits.

 

But the people who would choose the tall tables, would choose them to watch celebrities. So they will tend to linger and spend more time instead of moving fast. Hence, they "would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering", which also means that the restaurant should not expect higher profits.

 

Hence, the author's final statement is vulnerable to criticism.

 

Hope it makes sense.

[ChhotiAankhe_BadeSapane]

Ok guys. This is cool one!

 

Ans has to be C and this is why....

 

Assumption in the argument is ...

 

Tall stools ---> Tall stools will be used by people who come to see celebs --> dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables --> General people will finish the dinner (WITHTOUT LINGERING and vacate the stools and leave the rest) --> next new people will come to see celebs --> Same process repeats --> profit will increase!

 

But in the above argument, if the general people start lingering and spend more time in rest. and also we know that the dinner they buy is no very profittable to the rest. so rest. will have loss.

 

That makes C the best choice.

 

HTH.

[imjimmy]

The answer is C:

 

"A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering"

 

The generalisation about lingering is that:

 

Standard height tables => People spend more time

Taller Stool Table => People spend less time.

 

Take in the Celeberity factor: Situations is different -people would spend MORE time on taller tables to watch the celebs.(contrary to the normal expected behaviour)

 

Hence a customer at this restaurant who watchs the celebs on tall tables would be an exception to the generalization above.

 

I hope that makes it more clear.

[merlinacious]

I would prefer D, but when you come to think of it, C is also in the fray of things.

© A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering

The statement says, that the person who sits on the tall table would not linger, meaning would rather order.

The main purpose is to come to see the Hollywood stars and such ppl prefer large stools over standard tables. In such a case that the diner puts tall tables, it would lead to more volumes, as more people would come to see the celebs, as well as the assumption that those at the tall tables would spend more[as they linger less]

 

So high volume * more spending = better profits.

[sureshpad]

I would go with C.

[sickvick]

its a kaplan question not a gmat prep, And the OA is C.

[Shangsr]

I think C makes more sense, D is a trap. The question asked for assumption of the conclusion.

 

The logic is IF people who choose tall table stay shorter than people stay with regular table THEN replacing tables gets more profit. C states that "an exception to the generalization about lingering", which restates that people choose tall table won't linger.

So C is the assumption. I assume that "generatlisation" is a typo for "generalization".

[rycherx]

dude, how can you tell that this is an assumption question rather than a weakening question?

[anthonylo]

Definitely think it's D... How could there be an answer like C that talks about the generalization of lingering when there's no explanation of what that means in the paragraph? You can't make that kind of assumption.

 

For D, the paragraph states that people do not expect to stay a long time. In most cases, this would mean that there are higher profits as there is greater turnover for customers. However, this is not the case because people are not spending much when they are staying for a short time.

[Aqueel]

please post your queries in relevant thread to get prompt response from many serious aspirants.

 

this area of thread is not frequently visited due to lack of time.

[shool]

i think the last word of the passage should read 'decrease' .

[ashish214]

Agree D