pennmou

The reason to eliminate D) is that this question is a must be true type of question, meaning you cannot introduce NEW information. D) introduces NEW information while C) only points out the self-controversy stated in the stimulus.

If you think about it, how can you deduce D) by reading the stimulus ONLY? The prompt directs you to find something which "gives reason to believe that it is likely" according to the passage.

The following is the complete analysis.

First of all, this is similar to a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism which points out the deficiency in the argument.  So let's analyze the argument.

Premises:
1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view.
2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.

Conclusion:
If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly.  Therefore, profits would be up.  Wait a minute.  Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!

pennmou

True. More like a Most Strongly Supported type, which is one

grade lower of must-be-true type in term of not allowing outside

information and repeating what is said in stimulus.