第 2 楼
我的想法是：
前提：高座椅能方便客户看明星（吸引客户），另外，就餐顾客使用高座椅时间少（提高流动率）。
结论：替换成高座椅（吸引就餐顾客、提高流动率）利润上升。
削弱方法：割断因果（有果无因），即：因（替换成高座椅吸引就餐顾客）本身不成立。
C选项说：选择高座椅的客户不是准备（逗留 lingering）用餐的客户，即：高座椅吸引的客户非就餐顾客，即利润来源。
请大家拍砖。
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 table
It should be C? What about A and D?
这题我也错了，把几个nn得解释贴上来，楼主也可以搜索一下，以前有讨论
文章说：做高脚桌的人做的时间没有座标准桌的人的时间长，就认为都换成高脚的，能增加流动性，增加收入
但是问题在于，座高脚凳看热闹的人时不时和真正坐在标准桌上安心吃饭的人是一类人，能花足够多的钱来点东西吃的人呢？
如果不是，换完高脚凳，都是看热闹的，没有一门心思吃饭的人了，怎么能使得profit增加呢？
C is the answer。C说他们不是那些在餐厅吃饭呆着不走的人
D价格低不代表profit低
答案D说了“a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals ”，但这个customer并不等于选择高桌子的customer，所以是错的
(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
好莱坞的顾客选择高脚桌是个特例，他们通常仅仅逗留。（不消费，虽然走得快，但是饭馆没有利润）
再顶一下，先不说D中的价格低是不是Profit低
“a restaurant's customers who spend less time at their meals ”，但这个customer并不等于选择高桌子的customer，所以是错的
不能理解这句话，选择高桌子的人明显包括在逗留时间短的人中，所以根据文中所说自然消费少，难道问题就出在消费少不等于利润少吗？
谢谢！！！
我觉得CED都有道理
这里只说E，换掉一部分就被迫换掉其他，导致在没有演出的时候有很多空闲，长久的看利润下降，也可以啊
以前对C的解释好像有误解导致思路错误
would be an exception(例外) to the generalization (一般情况) about lingering (逗留)
原题:
许多顾客到Hollywood餐厅来看名人，而这些顾客偏好高脚桌因为其提供了较佳的视野来看名人。
此外，坐在高脚桌的用餐者通常待的时间不如坐一般桌仔的用餐者的时间一样长。(generalization)
因此，如果Hollywood餐厅将一些桌子换成高脚桌和高脚椅，它的利润会提高。
问: The argument is vulnerable (脆弱的) to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that (所给的
理由的弱点)
C选项: 一般情况而言坐高脚椅的用餐者待的时间较短，但是来看Hollywood名人的用餐者却可能是例外à为了看名人而一直逗留不走。
要根据原题所给的理由的弱点来回答，所以D选项花在食物上的钱的比较就是无关比较了。
为了看名人的人与那些人理论上待着时间短 的不一样，是个例外。只能这样理解就有道理了
1. first of all, what the question asked is about to strengthen the argument. Don't confused by "criticism".
2. Another culture concept we have to address here is: most of customers in US who choose the stools are lingers, who usually just buy a cup of drinks compared to diners.
3. C choice is trying to distinguish between the customer in Hollywood and the general patrons.
i don't know yet
up
1. first of all, what the question asked is about to strengthen the argument. Don't confused by "criticism".
2. Another culture concept we have to address here is: most of customers in US who choose the stools are lingers, who usually just buy a cup of drinks compared to diners.
3. C choice is trying to distinguish between the customer in Hollywood and the general patrons.
不是支持，是找weaken！
我的想法是：
前提：高座椅能方便客户看明星（吸引客户），另外，就餐顾客使用高座椅时间少（提高流动率）。
结论：替换成高座椅（吸引就餐顾客、提高流动率）利润上升。
削弱方法：割断因果（有果无因），即：因（替换成高座椅吸引就餐顾客）本身不成立。
C选项说：选择高座椅的客户不是准备（逗留 lingering）用餐的客户，即：高座椅吸引的客户非就餐顾客，即利润来源。
请大家拍砖。
明白了,谢了啊
以前对C的解释好像有误解导致思路错误
would be an exception(例外) to the generalization (一般情况) about lingering (逗留)
原题:
许多顾客到Hollywood餐厅来看名人，而这些顾客偏好高脚桌因为其提供了较佳的视野来看名人。
此外，坐在高脚桌的用餐者通常待的时间不如坐一般桌仔的用餐者的时间一样长。(generalization)
因此，如果Hollywood餐厅将一些桌子换成高脚桌和高脚椅，它的利润会提高。
问: The argument is vulnerable (脆弱的) to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that (所给的
理由的弱点)
C选项: 一般情况而言坐高脚椅的用餐者待的时间较短，但是来看Hollywood名人的用餐者却可能是例外à为了看名人而一直逗留不走。
要根据原题所给的理由的弱点来回答，所以D选项花在食物上的钱的比较就是无关比较了。
这个解释得最清楚！！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |