CR - GPrep2

[Nov1907]

I think the question threw me for a loop on this one. Would appreciate it if someone could explain why choice D is not assumed by the argument. I assume the question is what assumption is made by the argument.

[RonPurewal]

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.)

[ddohnggo]

I'm not a fan of this question. Ron, after reading your explanation (it took me a while to digest the logic), it made sense. However, that answer choice also makes assumptions. It assumes that people who sit in tall seats at the Hollywood are going to stay there longer. There isn't any information provided that would make me think that they would stay there longer and in fact be an exception to lingering.

I understand why the OP chose answer choice D because the conclusion deals with profits. I did the same thing.

[RonPurewal]

well, it doesn't require an actual assumption that patrons at high tables will stay longer. it just requires the acknowledgment that that's a possibility, which weakens the argument.

if that were an actual assumption, it would destroy the argument, not just weaken it. that's not what the problem is about.

[trangnhung3007]

Wow, the question stem was really a headache for me. But after reading it through and checking the correct answer, I suppose

"The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" simply means "The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it assumes that...."

Please let me know what you think about this. Tks

[RonPurewal]

Wow, the question stem was really a headache for me. But after reading it through and checking the correct answer, I suppose

"The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that" simply means "The argument is vulnerable to criticism because it assumes that...."

Please let me know what you think about this. Tks

nope. not accurate.

it's more like "the argument is weak because it's likely / quite possible that..."
in other words, this problem is closest in profile to a WEAKEN problem, not a "find the assumption" problem.

ironically, the original argument can't work unless the statement in the correct answer is FALSE. (i.e., if the statement is true, it actually calls the whole argument into question.) so, if you treat this as a "find the assumption" problem, you'll be looking for exactly the opposite of what you're supposed to find.

[pellucide]

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.
(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.
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(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
(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.




Thanks Ron, You explanation sounds plausible.
But I am stuck with the explanation for the generalization about lingering. The answer choice C seems to suggest that the question stem has some information about the generalization about lingering. But this is a new term introduced in this answer choice. The question stem talks about dinners not staying longer at the tall stools than at the shorter stools. That is not "the generalization about lingering". Also I cant think that the assumed explanation(the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables) is within the boundaries of "reasonable and common sense knowledge".

However this is the official answer from GMAT. I am probably better off accepting it and analyzing it.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron, You explanation sounds plausible.
But I am stuck with the explanation for the generalization about lingering. The answer choice C seems to suggest that the question stem has some information about the generalization about lingering. But this is a new term introduced in this answer choice. The question stem talks about dinners not staying longer at the tall stools than at the shorter stools. That is not "the generalization about lingering".

... yep, that's the generalization about lingering: "diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables".
first, it's a generalization (these people typically do this).
second, it's about lingering ("linger" = to stay longer).
... so, it's a generalization about lingering.

Also I cant think that the assumed explanation(the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables) is within the boundaries of "reasonable and common sense knowledge".

the factual content of that statement is, of course, outside the boundaries of reasonably assumed knowledge. on the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to expect you to identify this statement as "the generalization about lingering", for the reasons i listed above.

However this is the official answer from GMAT. I am probably better off accepting it and analyzing it.

[/quote][/quote]

yes.
i'm overjoyed to see someone finally write this, rather than the constant posting of "isn't this official answer wrong?"

[pellucide]

Thanks Ron for the follow up. I think I understand the logic

[tim]

:)

[anand.formal]

Hi Ron,

I am sorry to re open this post. I was just wondering why is option "E" wrong ?
The whole point of accommodating tall tables is that people can have a good "gawk" at the celebrities right ?

This option clearly takes that incentive away. Hence the restaurant owners back to square one. same profits as before.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I am sorry to re open this post. I was just wondering why is option "E" wrong ?
The whole point of accommodating tall tables is that people can have a good "gawk" at the celebrities right ?

This option clearly takes that incentive away. Hence the restaurant owners back to square one. same profits as before.

no, because option (e) talks about a plan that is much more drastic than the plan that is actually discussed in the passage.
the plan discussed in the passage only mentions "replacing some of the tables" with tall tables. however, option (e) goes much further than this: it talks about the consequences of a plan in which enough tall tables are installed to accommodate everyone who wants a tall table. this is much more extreme than the plan given in the prompt, so it's irrelevant.

[sgyoung12345]

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?

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.)

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.

[RonPurewal]

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 a completely new set of people would!), 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.

[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 a completely new set of people would!), 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.

Sorry this is a wrong post, because of internet problems....But I could not find ways to delete this post. I am sorry for the inconvenience. I have posted my question is the next post.