In their study of whether offering a guarantee of service quality will encourage customers to visit a particular restaurant, Tucci...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
In their study of whether offering a guarantee of service quality will encourage customers to visit a particular restaurant, Tucci and Talaga have found that the effect of such guarantees is mixed. For higher-priced restaurants, there is some evidence that offering a guarantee increases the likelihood of customer selection, probably reflecting the greater financial commitment involved in choosing an expensive restaurant. For lower-priced restaurants, where one expects less assiduous service, Tucci and Talaga found that a guarantee could actually have a negative effect: a potential customer might think that a restaurant offering a guarantee is worried about its service. Moreover, since customers understand a restaurant's product and know what to anticipate in terms of service, they are empowered to question its quality. This is not generally true in the case of skilled activities such as electrical work, where, consequently, a guarantee might have greater customer appeal.
For restaurants generally, the main benefit of a service guarantee probably lies not so much in customer appeal as in managing and motivating staff. Staff members would know what service standards are expected of them and also know that the success of the business relies on their adhering to those standards. Additionally, guarantees provide some basis for defining the skills needed for successful service in areas traditionally regarded as unskilled, such as waiting tables.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In their study of whether offering a guarantee of service quality will encourage customers to visit a particular restaurant, Tucci and Talaga have found that the effect of such guarantees is mixed. | What it says: Two researchers studied restaurant service guarantees and customer behavior. They discovered the results aren't clear-cut - sometimes guarantees help, sometimes they don't. What it does: Introduces the main research topic and sets up the central finding Source/Type: Researchers' claim/study results Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Restaurant A offers service guarantee → Some customers more likely to visit Restaurant B offers service guarantee → Some customers less likely to visit Result: Mixed effects What We Know So Far: Service guarantees have mixed effects on customer restaurant choice What We Don't Know Yet: Why are the effects mixed? What factors determine when guarantees help vs hurt? Reading Strategy Insight: The word "mixed" signals we're about to get examples of different scenarios. Prepare to see contrasts. |
| For higher-priced restaurants, there is some evidence that offering a guarantee increases the likelihood of customer selection, probably reflecting the greater financial commitment involved in choosing an expensive restaurant. | What it says: At expensive restaurants, guarantees seem to help attract customers. This probably happens because people want assurance when spending more money. What it does: Provides the first specific example of how guarantees can be positive Source/Type: Research evidence with researchers' interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 1 by explaining ONE part of the "mixed" results. We're getting our first piece of the puzzle about when guarantees work. Visualization: Expensive Restaurant ($50+ per person): With guarantee: 70% likely to choose Without guarantee: 60% likely to choose Customer thinks: "I'm spending $100 on dinner, so I want assurance" What We Know So Far: • Service guarantees have mixed effects • At expensive restaurants, guarantees help attract customers • Reason: People want assurance for big financial commitments What We Don't Know Yet: What about cheaper restaurants? When do guarantees hurt rather than help? |
| For lower-priced restaurants, where one expects less assiduous service, Tucci and Talaga found that a guarantee could actually have a negative effect: a potential customer might think that a restaurant offering a guarantee is worried about its service. | What it says: At cheaper restaurants (where people don't expect perfect service anyway), guarantees can backfire. Customers might think "Why are they offering a guarantee? Their service must be really bad." What it does: Provides the contrasting example - when guarantees hurt business Source/Type: Research findings with explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts directly with Sentence 2. We now have both sides of the "mixed" results from Sentence 1. The puzzle is becoming complete. Visualization: Cheap Restaurant ($15 per person): With guarantee: 40% likely to choose Without guarantee: 50% likely to choose Customer thinks: "Why do they need a guarantee? Must be bad service." What We Know So Far: • Expensive restaurants: guarantees help (financial commitment factor) • Cheap restaurants: guarantees hurt (customers get suspicious) • This explains why overall effect is "mixed" Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here! We now understand the "mixed" effect from Sentence 1. The complexity is resolving, not increasing. |
| Moreover, since customers understand a restaurant's product and know what to anticipate in terms of service, they are empowered to question its quality. | What it says: Restaurant customers know what to expect from dining out, so they feel confident judging whether the service is good or bad. What it does: Provides additional reasoning for why restaurant guarantees might not work well Source/Type: Author's analysis/reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on the previous sentence's point about customer suspicion. It explains WHY customers might be suspicious - because they feel capable of judging restaurant service themselves. Visualization: Customer at restaurant thinks: "I've eaten out hundreds of times. I know good service when I see it. I can tell if the food is good, if the server is attentive, if the place is clean. I don't need a guarantee to protect me." What We Know So Far: • Restaurant guarantees have mixed effects • Work better at expensive places (financial commitment) • Work worse at cheap places (customer suspicion) • Customers feel confident judging restaurant quality themselves Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence supports the previous point rather than adding complexity. We're building a coherent explanation. |
| This is not generally true in the case of skilled activities such as electrical work, where, consequently, a guarantee might have greater customer appeal. | What it says: Unlike restaurants, customers don't understand technical work like electrical repairs. So guarantees are more appealing for these services. What it does: Provides a contrasting comparison to reinforce the restaurant point Source/Type: Author's reasoning/comparison Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the previous sentence to strengthen the argument. By showing where guarantees DO work well (electrical work), the author reinforces why they don't work as well for restaurants. Visualization: Electrical Work: Customer thinks: "I have no idea if this wiring is good. I need a guarantee." Restaurant: Customer thinks: "I can tell if this meal and service are good myself." Reading Strategy Insight: This comparison actually makes the restaurant situation clearer, not more complex. The author is helping us understand by contrast. |
| For restaurants generally, the main benefit of a service guarantee probably lies not so much in customer appeal as in managing and motivating staff. | What it says: The real value of restaurant service guarantees isn't attracting customers - it's helping manage employees. What it does: Shifts focus to a different benefit of guarantees that works better for restaurants Source/Type: Author's conclusion/opinion Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on all the previous discussion by saying "OK, we've seen that guarantees have mixed results for attracting customers, but here's where they DO help restaurants." This continues the argument rather than contradicting it. Visualization: Customer Appeal: Mixed results (we just learned this) Staff Management: Strong benefit (new focus) Restaurant owner thinks: "Maybe customers don't care about my guarantee, but it gives me a tool to train my staff." What We Know So Far: • Customer appeal of guarantees: mixed/limited • Staff management benefits: probably the real value • We're shifting from external benefits to internal benefits Reading Strategy Insight: This isn't contradicting earlier points - it's showing a different angle where guarantees DO work for restaurants. |
| Staff members would know what service standards are expected of them and also know that the success of the business relies on their adhering to those standards. | What it says: When restaurants offer guarantees, employees understand exactly what's expected and realize their performance affects the business success. What it does: Explains HOW guarantees help with staff management (first specific way) Source/Type: Author's reasoning/explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains and supports the previous sentence. Sentence 6 said guarantees help manage staff; this sentence tells us how. Visualization: Server thinks: "We guarantee 5-minute greeting, hot food, clean tables. If I don't do this, customers get refunds and the restaurant loses money. My job depends on following these standards." Reading Strategy Insight: This is pure elaboration - making the previous point clearer with specific explanation. Complexity is decreasing as we get concrete details. |
| Additionally, guarantees provide some basis for defining the skills needed for successful service in areas traditionally regarded as unskilled, such as waiting tables. | What it says: Guarantees help restaurants figure out and define what skills servers actually need, even though serving is usually considered "unskilled" work. What it does: Provides a second specific way guarantees help with staff management Source/Type: Author's reasoning/additional benefit Connection to Previous Sentences: This adds to the previous sentence with the word "Additionally." We're getting a second staff management benefit to go with the first one. Visualization: Traditional view: "Waiting tables requires no special skills" With guarantees: "To guarantee good service, servers need: - Communication skills - Time management - Problem-solving - Memory skills - Multitasking ability" Final Summary - What We Know: • Customer appeal: Mixed (good for expensive, bad for cheap restaurants) • Staff management: Main benefit (clear standards + skill definition) Reading Strategy Insight: The passage has come full circle. We started with "mixed effects" and now understand exactly what that means AND found where guarantees DO work reliably. The argument is complete and coherent. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain why restaurant service guarantees have different effects on customers and to show where their real value lies for restaurant businesses.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first presenting research findings, then explaining the mixed results, and finally shifting focus to where guarantees actually work best:
- First, the author introduces research showing that restaurant service guarantees have mixed effects on attracting customers
- Next, the author explains this mixed effect by contrasting expensive restaurants (where guarantees help) with cheaper restaurants (where guarantees can backfire)
- Then, the author provides additional reasoning about why restaurant guarantees don't work well for customer appeal, comparing restaurants to technical services where customers can't judge quality themselves
- Finally, the author shifts focus to where restaurant guarantees do provide clear value: managing and training staff rather than attracting customers
Main Point:
While restaurant service guarantees have mixed and limited success in attracting customers, their main value is actually in helping restaurant owners manage their staff by setting clear service standards and defining what skills servers need.
3. Question Analysis:
This is a primary purpose question, which asks us to identify the author's main goal in writing the passage. We need to look at the overall structure and flow of ideas to determine what the author is trying to accomplish.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our detailed passage analysis, we can see a clear progression:
- The author starts by introducing research findings that show restaurant service guarantees have "mixed" effects
- The author then examines what might be considered conventional expectations about guarantees (that they should help attract customers)
- The author systematically breaks down why this conventional wisdom doesn't hold for restaurants - explaining the mixed results through different price points and customer knowledge levels
- The author contrasts restaurants with other services (like electrical work) where conventional wisdom about guarantees does apply
- Finally, the author challenges the conventional focus on customer appeal by showing where guarantees actually do work for restaurants: staff management
Prethinking:
The passage structure suggests the author's primary purpose is to examine and challenge conventional assumptions about how service guarantees should work in restaurants. The author takes what people might expect (guarantees attract customers) and shows why this conventional wisdom doesn't fully apply to restaurants, while revealing where guarantees actually do provide value. This matches a pattern of examining conventional wisdom about a topic.
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't question or challenge Tucci and Talaga's research results
• Instead, the author uses their findings as a foundation to build further analysis
• The author explains and elaborates on the research rather than questioning its validity
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the author disagree with the research findings?
→ No, the author used the research as a starting point and built upon it to provide explanations
1. Does explaining research results mean questioning them?
→ Not at all - the author treats the research as reliable evidence to support further analysis
Why It's Wrong:
• While the passage does discuss advantages and disadvantages, this is too narrow
• The focus on "potential" advantages/disadvantages misses that the author is examining established research findings
• This choice misses the key element of challenging conventional expectations about guarantees
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the passage discuss both positive and negative effects?
→ Yes, but within the larger context of examining conventional wisdom, not just listing pros and cons
1. Isn't discussing mixed effects the same as discussing advantages and disadvantages?
→ The author goes deeper - explaining WHY the conventional wisdom doesn't apply to restaurants
Why It's Right:
• The author systematically examines what people conventionally expect from service guarantees (customer attraction)
• Shows how this conventional wisdom has mixed results in restaurants, unlike other industries
• Challenges the conventional focus by revealing where guarantees actually work (staff management)
• The passage structure moves from conventional expectations to explaining why they don't fully apply
Key Evidence: "This is not generally true in the case of skilled activities such as electrical work, where, consequently, a guarantee might have greater customer appeal" - this directly contrasts conventional wisdom about guarantees with the restaurant reality.
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't argue for selective implementation of guarantees
• The passage explains effects rather than making recommendations about who should use guarantees
• The tone is analytical and explanatory, not argumentative or prescriptive
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author show that expensive restaurants benefit more?
→ Yes, but this is explanation of research findings, not an argument for selective implementation
1. Isn't showing different effects the same as arguing for selective use?
→ No, the author explains what happens but doesn't advocate for specific business decisions
Why It's Wrong:
• This choice is too broad and misses the specific focus on conventional wisdom
• "Impact on service provided" doesn't capture the customer appeal vs. staff management distinction
• This choice could apply to many different types of analysis about service guarantees
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the passage discuss impact on both customers and staff?
→ Yes, but the primary purpose is examining conventional expectations, not just cataloging impacts
1. Isn't examining conventional wisdom a type of considering impact?
→ Examining conventional wisdom is more specific and accurately captures the author's approach