p2-rc 17.久久纠结不能自拔 - 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.

顾客喜欢tall tables with stools，坐stools的顾客比做standard-height tables的顾客呆的时间要短

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

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

it gives reason 使得D不对，因为文中并没有说道这点，而C与the generalization about lingering有关？

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that

it gives reason 使得D不对，因为文中并没有说道这点，而C与the generalization about lingering有关？

原文是说做高凳子的人在餐馆逗留的时间比较短，而坐高凳子的人就要时间长一点。那为什么换成高凳子，缩短逗留时间能够提高利润呢？我当时看到这题的第一个反应就是这是为了缩短每个顾客的逗留时间，从而使得更多的人进来消费。（而当时脑子里第一个反应是，这个推理错在他假设来吃饭的客人很多的，这批走了马上会有第二批客户补充进来，可是看完选项竟然木有提到。。。伤心了。。。）

那所以的话，原文在推理的时候就假设，那些坐高凳子的人就不会逗留很长时间了（这就是C说的an exception to the generalization of lingering)。而这个假设是没有道理的，因为原文gives reason to believe 这个假设是 likely的，所以原文的推理是vulnerable的。

以下是引用quarboy在2009/10/10 21:59:00的发言：
我感觉lz对原文提问的理解好像没准确哦，原文的问题其实就是：the argument is flawed in that it presumes which of the following.

至于选项D，lz自己也说了，原文并没有提到这个信息，所以是无关选项了。