ChaseDream

标题: 在线等解答帮帮忙一到逻辑 [打印本页]

作者: 项少龙 时间: 2009-10-7 19:31
标题: 在线等解答帮帮忙一到逻辑

17. (26864-!-item-!-188;#058&003368)

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

觉得这一题的逻辑很奇怪
尤其是morever 那一句与前面一句没有递进关系，

而且答案(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering 与原文论据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矛盾

谁能帮忙讲解一下下

作者: onghat 时间: 2009-10-7 19:41
看邏輯題不要看什麽指示次，什麽遞進的，對相關性的理解沒有多大的幫助。最簡潔的方法便是，找准相關性，然後一步到位，就這樣答案也就選出來了。當然，也會是正確的。
A、B可以自然排除。D和E選項也都是說說了題目中tall tables兩個方面中的一個。
這道題不至於你這麼糾結的。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/7 19:44:26编辑过]

作者: 项少龙 时间: 2009-10-7 19:43

能帮忙详解这道题吗,thank you !!

作者: LittleMike 时间: 2009-10-7 20:21
题目的结论是：饭店把矮桌子换成高桌子后能多赚钱，原因是在高桌子上吃饭的人比在矮桌子上吃饭的人呆的时间短（暂时理解成时间短翻桌率高就赚钱多吧，至少出题者是这个意思）

C说了两个意思，第一：不坐高桌子的人拖拖拉拉时间长，第二：坐高桌子的人不拖拉，本来吃饭时间就短

那是什么意思呢？说的就是我会坐高桌子的人坐矮桌子照样时间短，照样给你高翻桌率，而我时间长的那些拖拉者你有了高桌我也不坐，所以高桌子对于减短人们吃饭时间没有贡献，就不能提高利润，就选C喽

作者: LittleMike 时间: 2009-10-7 20:22
还有那个moreover我的意见是别跟题目本身过不去……

作者: LittleMike 时间: 2009-10-7 20:25
而且答案(C) a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering 与原文论据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矛盾

这个我觉得也不矛盾吧……就算把两句话合在一起看，第二句说的是many customers而不是all customers，然后这些customer可以喜欢高桌子，他们同时也不喜欢拖拉不也可以吗……或者说lz意思是有了好的view就要多看一会？也许人家忙有事情或者正是因为时间少才需要更好的view呢……

其实我觉得根本没必要想这么多吧……不要太纠结……选出个相对最好的答案就好啦……

作者: 项少龙 时间: 2009-10-7 20:39

Little Mike 多谢，懂了能再问一道吗

73. There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientists, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.

(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer review before publication.

(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.

(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.

完全不明白什么意思

作者: LittleMike 时间: 2009-10-7 21:02
这道题我觉得还是难在阅读吧……我也看得一知半解，就胡乱说说吧~

第一句话就给出结论，科学家们的著作出版前不应该非得被officially confirmed

后面几句话的意思基本上是这样的：有个来决定是否confirm科学著作的系统，它实际上是考察这些著作是否是抄袭别人的（disconfirmation通过namely来等于the replication of results by other scientists），下面那句话我就跳过去不翻了，然后题干最后一句话是重点，因为是基于这句话，题目才得出不需要confirm的结论，这句话说抄袭会被暴露并且一定无害，当其他科学家做同样的誓言但得出不一致的结果的时候（可能意思是说得出不一样的结果来让人们从新检验这个理论对不对吧，最后也许能发现新理论来得到科学进步）

感觉BCDE说的都跟题干中的逻辑推导没啥关系，A说在科学实验能够被复制之前，他们已经被做了很多年并且得到的结果都是一致的，暗示这些结果都是正确的，那么再被人做也不会有新发现，那么就否定掉了原文得出结论基于的最后一句话，就weaken了吧……

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)