GMATPrep里面的一道逻辑题，欢迎讨论 - ChaseDream

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 the 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.

参考答案是C，我选了D。感觉C是无关项，原文说“人们都喜欢坐在stools上，而且坐在stools上的人在餐馆呆的时间不比坐在standard height上的人长，从而如果餐馆如果把tables都换成stools的话，利润会增大。”我认为利润增大的前提是“在其他条件不变时，来的人数会不变或变大，或者每人的花费都一样”，所以如果像D所说的，如果坐stools的人在餐馆呆的时间短，但其花费也同样少的话，那么利润显然就不一定会增大。

以下是引用eSpirit在2006-2-14 13:14:00的发言：

The argument is vulnerable to the 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.

不知道这样的理解是否正确？

[em06

以下是引用wycg在2006-2-14 13:43:00的发言：

D说的和原文说的改凳子没关系. 是无关选项.

但原文是说利润啊，每人的时间不变，但如果买的餐便宜了，商家赚的就少了啊。

以下是引用eSpirit在2006-2-14 13:14:00的发言：

The argument is vulnerable to the 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.

原文没说坐S的人呆的短,只说不比Standard的长.不能说就是短.可能一样.

不知道这样的理解是否正确？

题目问的好绕啊The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

原文说坐标准台的时间和坐高台的时间不一样（没说谁长谁短），C说坐高台的人往往不会留恋往返（消费也就少），因此不能贡献超额利润。

不知道能否这样理解，这样理解的话多了一个条件就是逗留的时间长短和消费有关。

用stool得人逗留的时间短,所以饭馆每晚接待的客人多,有可能赚钱多.

从这道题我学到的是,要紧扣主题.主题里只讨论lingering,没讨论price.

以下是引用merben在2006-5-27 3:44:00的发言：

这个说的是翻台率.

用stool得人逗留的时间短,所以饭馆每晚接待的客人多,有可能赚钱多.

D.说的是消费额,也对,但超出了原题的范围内.

D.说的是消费额, 原文说的是its profits would increase. 消费额和profits是两回事, 而且不一定成正比. 所以D无关.

从这道题我学到的是,要紧扣主题.主题里只讨论lingering,没讨论price.

不明白啊，为什么逗留时间短就会接待的客人多，就会利润高？文章中也没有说啊。

关于“所以饭馆每晚接待的客人多,有可能赚钱多”和“D.说的是消费额,也对,但超出了原题的范围内.”这两个消费额有什么不一样？

是不是关键是我问题没看懂，问题问的是The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that文章基于相信了下面那个理由才会容易被批评？是要找出文中的推理错误。

所以文章从其实做高凳子的人并不比做标准桌子的人呆的时候少——推理到坐高凳子的人呆的时间短。这个推理是错误。

这个题目今天也碰上了,花了3分钟, 还是错了。看了答案更迷糊.

题目说：许多顾客到餐厅来看表演，他们通常会坐吧台因为吧台看表演的视野好。此外，选择吧台的顾客通常没有选择标准餐台的顾客逗留的时间长。因此，如果餐厅都换成吧台的话，利润会增加。要求找一个反对这个推理的理由

C. A customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering.一个选择吧台的顾客成了关于逗留规律的例外，也就是说一个选择吧台顾客逗留时间比标准餐台顾客长

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.逗留时间短的顾客通常消费金额比逗留时间长的顾客少

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. 所有喜欢吧台的顾客都有足够的吧台位置坐，那么（顾客）除了能看见其他的吧台位置（顾客）外什么都看不见了

这道题D不一定，逗留时间短，可能翻台次数多，同样的位置上消费人次可能多，利润可能确实会增加，所以不一定能反对

C和E分别对应了段落中的2个前提，C对应“吧台顾客比标准餐台顾客逗留时间短”，但是C是用“一个顾客”去反对段落中的泛指或者many概念，我觉得有问题

E，对应“许多顾客来看演出，and 他们选择吧台，因为视野好”，E恰好反对说，如果所有想坐吧台都有地方（也就是把座位都改成吧台），那么视野就不好了，我认为恰好是反对结论的

The argument is vulnerable to the 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.

Please look at the words in red, do you get the feeling? The key is the way the question is presented. D is not related because you will not find any word to match it in the original context.

如果C正确，那么题目难以理解的原因是大家对问题的解释不清，问题应该理解为，“这个argument对于提供了原因人大家认为....的批判最vulnerable.”就是在找一个最能批判原文的，也就是weaken的选项。”

如果上面正确，那么C就可以理解了。C提出了去好莱坞餐厅看名人的客户的行为习惯与generaliztiony一样。对应题干中的一个论据：“ diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables”这个论据是一个基于常理的判断。如果客户的习惯跟别人不一样，自然他的推理就不成立。

同学们，声明我不是大牛，但是这道题我倒不是很迷糊。我的理解是：逻辑一定要紧扣题目，和题目无关或者题目没有说的条件，可以一概视为不成立或者无关。

题目是问：文章中隐含了什么条件使这一论断容易被人找出毛病。

题目开始就说：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. 就是说：做高台的人背来就是要看表演的，要欣赏节目的。后面又说：Moreover, diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.是说：坐高台子的吃饭不一定就比坐矮台子吃饭时间长，换句话说：前一句是说明选高台对用餐人的影响，后一举说高台对吃饭时间的影响，既然人家都是来看表演的，当然可能吃的时间长拉。所以是C。不知道我这样说是不是大家明白一点？

我个人看法：如果题目问，什么条件加强这个论断？后面有一个选项说：餐厅有时候坐不满，邻居餐厅都没有高台子，可能就能更好的帮助大家了解题目含义了。

1 d答案就算客人要得比较便宜，但是和利润没有关系，有可能便宜但是利润高

2 餐馆希望人们吃完早些走，这样可以有其他人来吃，不至于没有位子，影响了生意

3 c答案说的是这些人（喜欢看明星）虽然待的时间比较短，但是他们不具有代表性，很多人不喜欢明星的，坐了这样的桌子还是会吃的比较久

看了老半天,不大理解什么叫tables with stools.是指"带凳子的桌子"?
那么什么又叫"standard tables"?难道这种桌子就不带凳子?

不管了,反正一个就是ts,一个就是t.要削弱原题观点,就找个ts的弱点就行了.
起先我也选了D,认为可导致总利润下降.(做题时没怎么理解C的意思)
后来review incorrect的时候仔细想来:C比D更有说服力,C是说"用ts者会有别与其他闲逛的人,也就是十分显眼",这意味着很可能没人去用ts,于是这部分利润没了,总利润就必定减少了.
而D的作用就弱了点,因为尽管每一餐的花销少了,但因每一餐花费时间的减少会导致每一天的总餐数增加.结果总利润是增是减还很难说.
所以C比D更好.

D 错，售价的高低，并不决定利润，因为成本不知，所以D没有依据。便宜不一定赚的少，利润不一定就薄。

C对，因为饭店老板把那些坐高脚凳来看庆典的人当成了那些会正儿八经吃饭的人了。

以为那些做高脚凳看庆典花时间又少的人也会和那些一般的客人一样，点饭吃，而且吃的很快，这样的情况下，换高脚凳才有依据，否则，那些人只看庆典不点吃的，换再多的高脚凳，也是枉然

这题应该这样理解：原文第一句话：这个餐厅的顾客很多是来这里看名人的，因为很多名人经常来这里吃饭。因此，这些顾客想要高一点的台和凳子，因为这样可以把名人看得更仔细。第二句：按照一般的餐饮惯例，坐高凳和高台的人逗留时间比坐标准凳和台的人的时间短，也就是翻台率高点。（这里多点坐高凳的，收入就会更高。）问题要我们找这个推理的错误。

C就指出了这个错误：（即使按照一般的餐饮惯例，坐高凳和高台的要留时间短一点，）但是这条惯例在来好莱坞这里吃饭的人身上不成立。言外之意就是说，来好莱坞这里吃饭的人，坐高凳的合高台的时间起码不必标准凳的短，所以翻台率不会因为换了高台和高凳就增加，利润也不会因此增加。

C是正确的。
这题应该这样理解：原文第一句话：这个餐厅的顾客很多是来这里看名人的，因为很多名人经常来这里吃饭。因此，这些顾客想要高一点的台和凳子，因为这样可以把名人看得更仔细。第二句：按照一般的餐饮惯例，坐高凳和高台的人逗留时间比坐标准凳和台的人的时间短，也就是翻台率高点。（这里多点坐高凳的，收入就会更高。）问题要我们找这个推理的错误。
C就指出了这个错误：（即使按照一般的餐饮惯例，坐高凳和高台的要留时间短一点，）但是这条惯例在来好莱坞这里吃饭的人身上不成立。言外之意就是说，来好莱坞这里吃饭的人，坐高凳的合高台的时间起码不必标准凳的短，所以翻台率不会因为换了高台和高凳就增加，利润也不会因此增加。

-- by 会员 sundaysu (2008/4/6 10:12:00)