CR- When Bob's Bistro opened in the town of Monstrose...

[AsadA969]

How can it be assumed that if Bob's Bistro is full, the remaining customers WILL go to Andrew's Eatery only?

this is the wrong way to think about the task at hand.

Is it from GMATPrep?

Ron, I want to share something with this post. If someone says that "How can it be assumed that if Bob's Bistro is full, the remaining customers WILL go to Andrew's Eatery only?"", it'll not be wrong at all; It is wrong as because of there is a sign in the argument like "Andrew’s Eatery, the only other restaurant in town". So, the customers are not allowed to go to their relative's/friend's house to take their dine; they MUST go to Andrew's Eatery for taking their dine or meal.
If my thinking is wrong, then I request you to correct me.
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

i can't tell what you are asking. moreover, it seems you're asking a question about something that doesn't even exist in this problem—namely, this whole 'MUST xxxxx' business.

'MUST' is irrelevant here. that's not how any of the problems in this family (strengthen/weaken/evaluate/explain) work... because the words mean exactly what the words say.

• 'strengthen' means 'strengthen'. it does not mean 'prove'.
• 'weaken' means 'weaken'. it does not mean 'disprove'.
• 'help evaluate' means 'help evaluate'. it does not mean 'conclusively show that one side is right and the other is wrong'.
• 'best explain' means 'best explain'. it does not mean 'establish beyond any minuscule trifling doubt'.

if you are thinking about 'MUST xxxx' then you will be able to solve pretty much zero percent of these problems... because the whole point of this entire family of problems is that they are NOT formal proofs.

the reasoning behind D is...
...a new, competing restaurant opened next to andrew's.
...SINCE THAT TIME, andrew's has all these new customers of unknown provenance.
...according to D, the new place attracts more people than it can seat.
...the excess people have to go somewhere.
...do they HAVE to go to andrew's? no, of course not. lots of them probably just go back home, disappointed, and eat food from their own pantries.
...is it likely that SOME significant number of them go to andrew's? ...well, yes.

and that's the reasoning.

[AsadA969]

^^ What you've wrote in your LAST post, everything WAS in my mind. But, I did a mistake by using the word MUSTxxxxx. When I got a CR question, I try to personalize it instantly.

Here is my understanding:
I (Andrew’s Eatery) was the king in resturant business in my zone as there was only one Restaurant, which is operated by me! Suddenly, you've (Bob’s Bistro) opened a restaurant in my zone. So, I feared that my business may go down. But, surprisingly my business increased in stead of go down. HOW? So, I've to find out an answer option in which at least one NEW customer MUST come (still it seems, in appearently, that I'm proving something by using the word MUST; I used the word MUST just to convince myself that at least one NEW customer I should have otherwise the conclusion will die) to my restaurant, increasing the total number of my restaurant's present customer than before. The customer who did not get seat may return to their house, also still they may be in starvation but at least ONE customer MUST come to my restaurant otherwise the conclusion will die. (Actually I am not proving anything; I am so serious about my conclusion ). So, I've to find out an answer option by which my customer can be increased! Here, D fits my understanding.

N.B. I did not ask you any question in the preivious post; I just shared my feelings about the question.

[RonPurewal]

that's a good way to think about it.

[AsadA969]

Ron,
Is my reasoning fallacious?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

since i wrote "that's a good way to think about it", you already have the answer to that question.

[AsadA969]

Ron, When you said that "that's a good way to think about it", I thought it is just about only personalizing CR passage is a good way to think about it.
Sorry, if I bother you.
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

that is also true, but here i meant that you had a good handle on the problem.
(:

Sorry, if I bother you

no problem!
sorry myself, in fact, that 'that's a good way to think about it' wasn't sufficiently clear.