CR - GPrep2

[mcmebk]

Hi Ron,
I was just trying to understand the argument and the reasoning behind the OA, and wanted to see if the following thought process was on track as to why C is the correct answer.

Conclusion states that having more tall tables --> higher profits.

C says that customers sitting at tall tables would be an exception to those that do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. So in a sense by believing this, the owner is saying that because these customers are the exception (and therefore are likely to stay longer at a tall table to watch celebrities), they'll spend more money on food?

no, it's the opposite.
the original reasoning behind the tall tables -- i.e., the flawed reasoning described in the passage, which doesn't account for the "paparazzi factor -- is that the diners won't stay as long.
in other words, the original thinking is that people will order normal food but leave faster if they sit at the tall tables.

on the other hand, if people want the tall tables so that they can gawk at celebrities, they're likely to stay longer ... to gawk at celebrities.
there's no reason to suppose that they'll order any additional food -- certainly, they'll order less additional food than would a completely new set of people -- so the consideration raised in choice (c) means that the tall tables are less likely to bring in the additional revenue that they're meant to bring in.

I guess I'm confused as to how the owner believes the tall tables will result in higher profits (is this through faster turnover of customers or more money spent on menu items, etc.)

"diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long..."
--> comparable amounts of money, less time. so, more money overall.

the problem with this reasoning, of course, is that the stool-sitters in this particular restaurant are not likely to be "typical". that's the essence of choice (c).

Also, I feel like this is one of the more difficult 700+ questions...would you agree with this? I guess one would only see this type of question if they were nearing the upper 90's in percentile on the verbal.

it's impossible to guess difficulty levels with any significant accuracy, so this sort of thing is pointless to think about.

Hi Ron

I am sorry after your thorough explanations, I feel that I need some further clarifications from you.

As you explained, this question is indeed a weaken question, which normally introduces new information to weaken the conclusion - in which case is "its profits would increase".

With option C, since it already stated as a fact " they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities.", so I presume the "a customer" in C) means diners, and the meaning of answer C is:

Diners choosing to sit on stools in Hollywood actually stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables (an exception to the generalization of lingering); if that is true, it does not necessary weaken the conclusion because its profits would stay the same if people don't really behave differently.

Yet option D clearly weakens the conclusion, if diners don't spend as much money, it is unlikely to have an increased profit.

Please correct my thinking.

Thank you Ron.

[RonPurewal]

regarding choice (c), you wrote ...

Diners choosing to sit on stools in Hollywood actually stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables (an exception to the generalization of lingering); if that is true, it does not necessary weaken the conclusion because its profits would stay the same if people don't really behave differently.

what's ironic here is that you've answered your own question, with the green part.

if you give evidence that profits will stay the same, then ... well, in other words, you're giving evidence that profits WILL NOT increase.
so, yes, that definitely weakens the conclusion.

if this is still unclear, just make analogies.
for instance, if an argument says "Ron will gain weight", then, if i present evidence that ron's weight will stay the same, then of course that weakens the case.

[RonPurewal]

Yet option D clearly weakens the conclusion, if diners don't spend as much money, it is unlikely to have an increased profit.

not necessarily.
choice (d) does say that they spend less money on food ... but it also says that they spend less time at the tables. either one of these factors could outweigh the other.
e.g., if they only spend 60% as much on food, but they only spend 50% as much time at the tables, then the restaurant will wind up making 20% more money as a result.
(you shouldn't have to plug in specific numbers like this while you're solving the problems, but it's just an illustration.)

[NL]

I slipped into D too. Gawking at the question, I discovered something interesting (not sure if it's true):
Here is the statement again:

"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."

If the 2 sentences in blue stick together and "however" is moved to the beginning of the specific case, I will understand the statement very differently. It will look like this:

"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. However, at present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase."

For this statement, I'll clearly see that the words in black is just a general background, and the blue part describes a specific case.

(C) says: "a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering"
--> that means this specific case is an exception of general fact. Make sense as a weakener!

But when I did it, I thought that the black part was there for the specific case. So, I automatically eliminated C because it seemed to contradict the fact, although I "smelled" that D was little fake as the answer.

My question are: For some questions like this one, I didn't see possible answers after reading answer choices , but it took around 2:30 minutes already. So I knew I misunderstood something in the questions or the answer choices. If I go back to read it again, it may take 1:30-2 more minutes and I may or may not get the correct answers.

- What should I do in this situation?
- How could I improve?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Well, sure, if they rearranged the statements like that, the problem would be highlighted. But, remember, these are arguments, of the sort that might be given be real people in the actual world. Real-world people are not going to deliver arguments in ways that highlight the flaws in their own reasoning (!), so the speakers here won't do so here either.

Let's say the speaker here is "Joe". (Giving the speaker a name is helpful -- it's much easier to understand what's happening in an argument if you imagine it as a conversation.)
Joe presents his case in the following order:
* What Joe sees as a problem (only standard-height tables)
* His reasoning for (a) why that's a problem, and (b) why his fix would be a better idea
* His proposed solution (install a mix of high and low tables)

That's why the statements are in this order.

Joe's idea that stool-sitters will leave early is not well thought out... but, of course, Joe doesn't know that. Joe's lack of awareness of the issue is the entire pount of this problem.

[RonPurewal]

But when I did it, I thought that the black part was there for the specific case. So, I automatically eliminated C because it seemed to contradict the fact,

The black part -- about the typical habits of diners on stools -- couldn't possibly be a specific statement about the Hollywood. Remember, the Hollywood doesn't have any stools!
That's the whole point here; the argument is about whether to install them.

[RonPurewal]

- What should I do in this situation?
- How could I improve?

Thank you!

My best two answers here are...
... Name the speaker,
... Imagine the argument as an actual conversation with that speaker.

If you can successfully formulate this problem as a conversation, then it will be obvious that "diners on stools typically do xxxx" is a generalization -- because you'll understand why the conversation is happening. The conversation is happening because the Hollywood doesn't have stools at all right now, and Joe is arguing that some should be installed.

(Framing arguments as conversations will also do away with the useless (and counterproductive) habit of looking for "rules" that will solve CR problems. After all, no one looks for rules when they have conversations! You just think about what the other person is saying.)

[NL]

:)

[NL]

The black part -- about the typical habits of diners on stools -- couldn't possibly be a specific statement about the Hollywood. Remember, the Hollywood doesn't have any stools!
That's the whole point here; the argument is about whether to install them.

Yes. That meant I didn't fully understand the argument at that time. For me, it's the main reason for choosing the wrong answers or choosing the right ones (by connecting elements) but didn't really understand why.

---------------------

Ron, could you fix or point out my writing errors in my posts if you feel eye itchy when you pass by them? That will help you a bit, and of course, help me a lot :)) Thank you. (I like your writing style and the way you use vocabulary vividly)

[RonPurewal]

Yes. That meant I didn't fully understand the argument at that time. For me, it's the main reason for choosing the wrong answers or choosing the right ones (by connecting elements) but didn't really understand why.

Assuming you understand it now, ok.

Ron, could you fix or point out my writing errors in my posts if you feel eye itchy when you pass by them? That will help you a bit, and of course, help me a lot :)) Thank you. (I like your writing style and the way you use vocabulary vividly)

While you could conceivably benefit from this, unfortunately, for other readers it would detract from the unity / logical flow of the discussion.

[NL]

While you could conceivably benefit from this, unfortunately, for other readers it would detract from the unity / logical flow of the discussion.

Good point. No other demands!

[RonPurewal]

.

[CrystalSpringston]

Please don't post image files for text-based verbal questions; just type the text into the forum window. You should be able to copy and paste it; if you can't, then please spend the short time that it takes to re-type the text, so that forum users with slow connections don't have to wait an obscenely long time for image files to load.

--

With that said:

Yeah, the wording of that question sucks!

The key word is CRITICISM: you're looking for something that's WRONG with the argument. The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)

Hi Ron,
Whether D fails because there is no mention of the cost of meals in the passage, or because the situation it describes doesn't always weaken the conclusion ?
Normally, for each weaken questions, we usually see "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
In other word, the new topics are allowed in the options (same for strengthen), even though they are not mentioned in the passage. So we cannot judge all the new elements as irrelevent .(Pls correct me if wrong).

But for this question at hand, why would it not be allow to have new topics, such as the meal expense in D?
is it due to the way the question is raised: The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that


Need your clarification on this. Relevance is significant in CR. I don't want to be off on it.
Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

this question works like every other 'weaken' question.

the difference—and the reason why the prompt is written differently—is that the 'weakener' is something that is almost certainly true, given the information provided. (people come to this place to hang out and watch celebrities. thus, people who sit at tall tables HERE—unlike people who sit at tall tables elsewhere—will probably stay for quite a while.)
BUT
this difference is irrelevant to the functionality of the problem, since ALL 'weaken' problems, including this one, deal exclusively with the consequences that ensue if each answer choice is true.

--

[RonPurewal]

IN SIMPLER TERMS:

• most weaken problems are
"these things may or may not be true. but, IF THEY ARE ALL TRUE, which one weakens the argument?"

• this problem is
"which one of these is probably true... and, IF IT IS TRUE, weakens the argument?"

so, functionally, you're still doing the same thing.