At present the hollywood restaurant - 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.

Question: 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 of the Hollywood's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

此题似乎在C和E之间选择有点难度。选择E的认为C改变了出题人的premise（人们来restaurant是来看明星的，而不是来吃饭逗留的）

请问这一题答案是什么呀？我觉得选d，选高凳看名人的，逗留时间短，花销少，无法达到原文中的profit increase.

这个题就好像上海的迪吧，卡座都有最低消费（好像文中说的逗留时间长，消费高），高脚凳没有最低消费（这样的人群消费少，逗留时间短）

所以d就是这个意思，把高消费的人和低消费的人区别对待，而不是一律提供standard-height table这会导致低消费的人也逗留时间长,即低消费对应高脚凳，高消费对应standard-height,profits当然increase

而c的意思大概是喜欢高脚凳的消费者不是target consumer（an exception to the generalization about lingering ）,按这个推理，设置一些高脚凳不会引起profits incease

the conclusion of the sentence is that the Hollywood's profits will increase by replacing some of its seating with high tables and stools. The question is what makes the conclusion vulnerable, which means even replaced some of tables and stools, the profits will not increase.

If you are not confident with the conclusion, you can go back to the reason for the conclusion, one of the driving factors is that diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables.

这到题我也答错了，过后看了答案才分析出来，可能是这样吧：
原文用一般的情况来推断好莱坞饭店的特例：“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.”意思是老板以为顾客坐的时间短，换台率高，他可以多挣几次钱，利润就高了。但C选项说了，来这家饭店想要做高脚凳的人和一般情况是不同的“ would be an exception to the generalization about lingering”。也就是直接削弱了原文的前提，那么原文的结论提高利润当然也就被削弱了。这是很典型的GMAC老头意识，当原文是用了类比，答案就是隔断联系，说他们有不同点，不能类比。
而D，看似削弱，其实不直接，消费只是利润的一方面，换台率是另一个要素，正常情况下，即使高脚凳消费低，很快吃完换一拨也有可能多赚钱，但这些顾客是来看明星的，高脚凳坐上去就更不走了，这才是重点。

-- by 会员 yangbaozi (2011/6/17 9:16:12)