As with all arguments, I like to first start by reading the question and then breaking down the argument into conclusion and premises. First the question:
Shawshank wrote:
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
Alright, so I know now that I will be dealing with weaknesses in the argument. So I will keep that in mind as I break it down.
Shawshank wrote:
At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables. However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent 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 Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
Conclusion: Replace seating and profits will go up
Premise: People go to restaurants to see celebs
Premise: People want tall tables and seats to see the celebs
Premise: Diners on stools don't stay as long
Alright, so there is the argument. Not a lot there to support the idea that profits will go up except for the fact that there might be a faster turnover of tables. But there are a lot of assumptions here:
1. tall stools and tables won't deter people from spending as much as they did with normal tables
2. People actually want to see celebs and not eat food
3. Celebs will continue to come even if it is easier for people to see them at the taller tables
...
Now it is time to look at the answer choices and see what makes the argument vulnerable. We need to look for reasons why profits might not increase.
Shawshank wrote:
(A) some celebrities come to Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
Well, this is not a problem. This is just more support for having taller tables. The celebs will come to sit at the tall tables making it easier for people to see them. This is not a criticism. Eliminate.
Shawshank wrote:
(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
This too focused on celebrities. The argument and the restaurant does not base its profits on how much celebs spend. Profits are based on all the other people coming to the restaurant. This is too narrowly focused so eliminate it.
Shawshank wrote:
(C) a customer of Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
This gets at one of the assumptions I had. If someone sits at a tall table, will they stay longer or leave faster. Here we have a possible example, or a question, about what these customers are like. The argument assumed that people at the Hollywood would leave quickly when at a tall table, like at other restaurants. But what if having a tall table means you can see the celebs? This might be a reason to stay. And thus there would not be a fast turnover. People might stay longer because they have a good view of a celeb whereas before, without a good view, people would just eat and leave. This looks like the answer.
Shawshank wrote:
(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
This is also close to what I was saying in the assumptions. But the problem is that this does not necessarily weaken the argument. People who stay less time order less expensive food which might cut into the profits. But if you have more people coming in to eat, and you can sit more people during your business hours, then ordering less expensive food won't be a problem. So this might be a problem, but not necessarily. Answer choice (C) would necessarily weaken the argument and cut into profits always. So this answer is not as good as D. But is a good tempting choice.
Shawshank wrote:
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except other tall tables
This might also be a problem, but the argument doesn't say that they are going to jam tables into the restaurant. There is no mention of adding more seating. They are merely going to replace the tables that they have. So this is outside the scope of the argument and wrong.
I hope that I was able to shed some light on this question.
29 Nov 2022, 09:00
20% (03:46) correct
