[求助]prep2-17 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

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

1. 请问NN，这是不是一道削弱题？
2.答案是C，可是C 直接与题目中的内容相反。题目中提到many customers come to watch the celebrities who frequent the Hollywood,而C中说这些个customers只是exception
这样也可以吗？求教！

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。