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.

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.)

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.

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.