#21 - Restaurant critic: Most people agree that the food at

[g_lawyered]

Hi Robert,
Thanks for your explanation. I now see why answer choice D strengthens the reason why TrainTrack Inn is more popular than Marva's Dinner. That because the quality of food doesn't matter and TrainTrack Inn already attracts good amount of customer (it's popular restaurant), they DON'T need to improve their product (quality of food). Is that right?

In your explanation of why answer choice E is incorrect, there's a part I didn't understand:
"Why would a more convenient place have WORSE food - why not just have any quality of food, since quality doesn't relate to popularity at all? Answer choice (E) does not address these questions." Can you please explain this further?

Also, you mention that: " Quality of food doesn't relate to popularity at all." So doesn't E confirm this principle? That since there ISN'T a relationship between quality of food and popularity of restaurant, TrainTrack Inn is popular/attracts customers for a reason that's NOT the quality of food. I think I might be misinterpreting what answer choice E really is saying and how it affects the argument.

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

When Robert wrote

Quality of food doesn't relate to popularity at all.

he was not stating the argument's position, but analyzing the implications of answer E. If Answer E would was true, that would mean that quality has nothing to do with popularity. That's the problem with that answer: we need an answer that indicates that quality IS affected by popularity, which is in turn affected by location. If your location is good enough to make it popular, then you will not take steps to make the food exceptional. You'll satisfy yourself with ordinary food. Answer E gives us no better understanding of why the food at Traintrack is of lower quality than the food at Marva's.

[g_lawyered]

Thanks for clarifying that Adam!

[ange.li6778]

But in fact the argument being made by the stimulus is that a restaurant's food quality is caused by its level of popularity; if the restaurant is already popular due to another factor, it won't make good food. If a restaurant doesn't have anything else to rely on for customers, then it must make superior food. So (D), as a principle, bolsters that causal link.

Could you break down the parts of the stimulus that pointed you to the causal reasoning?

I've read through all the previous posts and still am struggling to pick out the argument that a restaurant's food quality is caused by its level of popularity. I can only identify the idea that "location --> customers/popularity" but am lost on how to connect food quality to popularity. I understand the reasoning that if location is sufficient to guarantee customers, then it doesn't need to have good food to be popular. But I don't see how that equates to "if a restaurant is already popular, it won't make good food." Thanks in advance!!

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Angeli,

You're absolutely right that there's nothing in the argument that indicates that a restaurant that is popular because of its convenient location won't make good food. As you identified, the idea is that they don't have to because if you've already got plenty of customers, there's no economic incentive to make better quality food.

But this is not a rule. The argument is not that this must happen for every single restaurant! Rather, the language is that this "should come as no surprise." Also, this is a strengthen question, not a must be true question. The stimulus does not have to prove the answer choice; you accept the answer choice as true and ask whether it makes the conclusion stronger.

IF it's true that the only time a business will improve its products is when it has to in order to get customers, then the conclusion is rock solid.

Hope that helps!
Beth