A fast-food restaurant recently gave customers the option of entering their orders on a computer instead of speaking to an...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
A fast-food restaurant recently gave customers the option of entering their orders on a computer instead of speaking to an employee. When customers order by computer, it displays a list of additional items and suggests ordering them. During the first month, computer orders contained, on average, 10 percent more items than did orders placed directly with employees. Clearly, therefore, the computer display influences customers to order more items than they otherwise would.
Which of the following would it be most useful to establish for the purpose of evaluating the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A fast-food restaurant recently gave customers the option of entering their orders on a computer instead of speaking to an employee. |
|
| When customers order by computer, it displays a list of additional items and suggests ordering them. |
|
| During the first month, computer orders contained, on average, 10 percent more items than did orders placed directly with employees. |
|
| Clearly, therefore, the computer display influences customers to order more items than they otherwise would. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing a new computer ordering system with suggestion features, then presents data showing computer orders were 10% larger, and concludes this proves the computer influences customers to order more.
Main Conclusion:
The computer display influences customers to order more items than they otherwise would.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses a simple cause-and-effect structure: Computer suggestions (cause) → 10% more items ordered (effect) → Computer influences behavior (conclusion). However, this assumes the 10% difference is due to the computer's influence rather than other possible factors.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find what information would be most useful to determine whether the argument's conclusion is valid. This means looking for assumptions that, when tested, would either strengthen or weaken the conclusion.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a specific quantitative claim (10% more items in computer orders) and a causal claim (computer display influences customers to order more than they otherwise would). The precision hinges on whether the computer system is actually causing the increase versus other factors.
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to identify the key assumptions the argument relies on. The argument assumes the 10% difference is caused by the computer display suggestions. We should think of scenarios that would either confirm this causal relationship or reveal alternative explanations. The best evaluation point will test whether the computer display is truly the cause of increased ordering.
Whether some customers chose employee orders because they weren't comfortable with computers addresses customer comfort levels but doesn't help us evaluate whether the computer display influences ordering behavior. Even if some people avoided computers due to discomfort, this doesn't tell us whether the computer suggestions caused the 10% increase in items ordered.
Whether people who planned to order many items were more likely to choose computer ordering directly tests the argument's key assumption. If people who already intended to order more items self-selected the computer option, this would explain the 10% difference without the computer display being the cause. This information would either strengthen the argument (if the answer is no) or seriously weaken it (if the answer is yes), making it the most useful for evaluation.
Whether computer maintenance costs were less than employee wages is about operational efficiency, not about whether the computer display influences customer ordering behavior. This cost comparison is irrelevant to evaluating the causal claim in the conclusion.
Whether kitchen employees could distinguish between computer and employee orders relates to the restaurant's internal operations but has no bearing on whether the computer display influences customers to order more items. This doesn't help evaluate the argument's conclusion.
Whether customers use keys, touch screens, or voice for computer ordering describes the interface method but doesn't address whether the computer suggestions influence ordering behavior. The method of input is irrelevant to evaluating the causal relationship claimed in the argument.