PREP的一道题，实在想不通

At present the Hollywood Restaurant has only standard-height tables.  However, many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood, and they would prefer tall tables with stools because such seating would afford a better view of the celebrities.  Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.  Therefore, if the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

(A) some celebrities come to the Hollywood to be seen, and so might choose to sit at the tall tables if they were available
(B) the price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at the Hollywood compensates for the longer time, if any, they spend lingering over their meals
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
(D) a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals typically order less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(E) with enough tall tables to accommodate all the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

我选的答案是D，就是说坐在高桌子的人虽然待的时间短，但同时点的东西也便宜

而答案给的C

我的理解：

题干说很多客人来餐馆是看演出的。他们更喜欢高桌子搭配stools（长凳）。而且坐stools的比坐高桌子的待的时间短。所以这么把部分高桌子换成stools利润更大。（就说想吃东西的坐长凳，想看演出的坐高桌子）

题目是说怎么找茬。C说在Hollywood那些选择高桌子的人都不是想多逗留的主儿。直接反驳，也就是说客人不需要通过换stools分流。

D说客人待的时间短，点的食物也会便宜。觉得和题干所述内容没什么相关。

知道你的想法，客流量大但食物便宜可能影响profit增加，但只是“可能”

从别的帖子上贴过来一句话：

“记得携隐曾经说过，削弱题的答案，必须一定能够削弱结论，而不是可能可以削弱，可能不能削弱。”

俺要好好体会

东西便宜不代表profit就少

profit=sale price(是否便宜)-cost

所以D不能削弱结论。

文章说：因为坐高脚桌的人做的时间短，所以全换成高脚桌能增加利润。其出发点是通过增加食客效率来提升profit的。但前提是，他们得点东西。如果像c所说，他们只是坐坐不是普通的因为吃饭而逗留的人的话，profit就没戏了。