ChaseDream

标题: Prep07 CR2 第17题 Hollywood Restaurant 的解释 [打印本页]

作者: kaikaichen 时间: 2010-8-12 13:53
标题: Prep07 CR2 第17题 Hollywood Restaurant 的解释
这道题花了很久，终于弄明白，分享一下。

At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard height tables. However, many customers come to watch celebrities who frequent Hollywood & they prefer tall tables in stools because such seating would afford better view of the celebrities. Moreover, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating with higher tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that:
(a) Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
(b) The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
(c) A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering
(d) A restaurant's customer who spends less time at their meal typically orders less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(e) With enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood restaurant's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

这个题的关键是要理解题干问的什么，The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that，这个问法和普通的support和weaken的题目其实是不一样的，我们转译一下，应该是这样：The argument is vulnerable to the criticism because it assumes that，就是说，这个推论是错的，因为它有一个假设或前提是经不起推敲的，问这个假设是什么。所以答案应该是题目内含的一个假设，我们来看看题目假设了什么。

原题三句话，第一句，H餐厅现在只有标准高度的桌子，但是顾客喜欢坐带stool的高桌子，因为可以更好的看明星。第二句，喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短。第三句，所以H餐厅换一点带stool的高桌子可以挣更多钱。

第二句话就是一个假设，这句话假设喜欢坐stool的顾客吃饭时间短，这样桌子的利用次数就高，餐厅就越能挣钱。这句话其实还隐含了一个假设，就是吃饭时间短的顾客不会比其他人消费的更少，否则餐厅就算能多翻几次台，但是每次挣得少，还是不能多赚钱。

再看5个选项，A, B和E都不是原题里提到或暗藏的假设，原题的推论也不需要这些，C其实就是“喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短”的转述，直译就是：喜欢坐stool的顾客他们的吃饭耗时相对通常吃饭耗时来说是个例外（更长或更短都是例外，原题是假设更短）。D与原题隐含的假设正好相反。

说到底，还是考阅读，如果原题每个词连成句子的意思都弄懂了，这个题就不复杂。

作者: loverwy 时间: 2010-8-20 12:39
下面解释是我从一个国外网站上找来的，觉得比较有理，供大家参考：

原文题干应该是：It's more like "the argument is weak because it's likely / quite possible that..."

The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)

作者: kaikaichen 时间: 2010-8-21 10:41
这个国外网站的解释是错的。

下面解释是我从一个国外网站上找来的，觉得比较有理，供大家参考：

原文题干应该是：It's more like "the argument is weak because it's likely / quite possible that..."

The OA, which is C, is just that: the 'generalization about lingering' is the idea that people won't sit at tall tables for as long as at short tables. Yet, according to the passage, the customers at tall tables will probably be there to gawk at celebrities, so they will probably stay for a long time - the 'exception' mentioned in this answer choice.

As for choice D, there is no mention of the cost of meals anywhere in the passage, so, nothing in the passage could possibly support any notion about differential meal prices. (In fact, strictly speaking, the passage doesn't even state that Hollywood Restaurant serves meals in the first place! For all we know, it's just a bar.)

-- by 会员 loverwy (2010/8/20 12:39:58)

作者: sallyruru 时间: 2010-8-30 20:20
悲剧，就是因为不懂linger，然后错了……逻辑就是考阅读啊！

作者: fansail 时间: 2010-10-14 23:11

这道题花了很久，终于弄明白，分享一下。

At present, the Hollywood restaurant has only standard height tables. However, many customers come to watch celebrities who frequent Hollywood & they prefer tall tables in stools because such seating would afford better view of the celebrities. Moreover, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables. Therefore, if the Hollywood restaurant replaced some of its seating with higher tables and stools, its profits would increase.

The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that:
(a) Some celebrities come to Hollywood restaurant to be seen and so might choose to sit at tall tables if they are available
(b) The price of meals ordered by celebrities dining at Hollywood restaurant compensates for longer time, if any, that they spend lingering over their meals
(c) A customer of the Hollywood restaurant who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generatlisation about lingering
(d) A restaurant's customer who spends less time at their meal typically orders less expensive meals than those who remain at their meals longer
(e) With enough tall tables to accommodate all Hollywood restaurant's customers interested in such seating, there would be no view except of other tall tables

这个题的关键是要理解题干问的什么，The argument is vulnerable to the criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that，这个问法和普通的support和weaken的题目其实是不一样的，我们转译一下，应该是这样：The argument is vulnerable to the criticism because it assumes that，就是说，这个推论是错的，因为它有一个假设或前提是经不起推敲的，问这个假设是什么。所以答案应该是题目内含的一个假设，我们来看看题目假设了什么。

原题三句话，第一句，H餐厅现在只有标准高度的桌子，但是顾客喜欢坐带stool的高桌子，因为可以更好的看明星。第二句，喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短。第三句，所以H餐厅换一点带stool的高桌子可以挣更多钱。

第二句话就是一个假设，这句话假设喜欢坐stool的顾客吃饭时间短，这样桌子的利用次数就高，餐厅就越能挣钱。这句话其实还隐含了一个假设，就是吃饭时间短的顾客不会比其他人消费的更少，否则餐厅就算能多翻几次台，但是每次挣得少，还是不能多赚钱。

再看5个选项，A, B和E都不是原题里提到或暗藏的假设，原题的推论也不需要这些，C其实就是“喜欢坐stool的顾客通常吃饭时间短”的转述，直译就是：喜欢坐stool的顾客他们的吃饭耗时相对通常吃饭耗时来说是个例外（更长或更短都是例外，原题是假设更短）。D与原题隐含的假设正好相反。

说到底，还是考阅读，如果原题每个词连成句子的意思都弄懂了，这个题就不复杂。

-- by 会员 kaikaichen (2010/8/12 13:53:49)

说得切中要害！问题的性质决定了答案要根据文中已提供的信息，而不是一般削弱中常用的举出他因（比如某个plan有不足所以不好）。

作者: 西西zsx 时间: 2011-3-24 20:16
我觉得问题“The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that”
去掉修饰语就是The statement is vulnerable ，也就是求weaken，

作者: 小甜菜的宝宝 时间: 2011-5-6 11:25
楼主正解！按照layer解题方法，这是ASSUMPTION题目，不是WEAKEN

作者: fuknokia 时间: 2011-5-6 14:46
我还是认为国外网站上的这个解释是比较恰当的。
因为：
问题是：The statement is vulnerable to criticism in that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that
是提出了下面的ABCDE就是这个criticism 的备选项。
从中选出一个能够weaken原文结论的选项出来。

-- by 会员 loverwy (2010/8/20 12:39:58)

作者: wangfy98cn 时间: 2011-5-11 08:23
我也同意国外网站上的解释比较正确：

generalizationo of about lingering-----应该指的是文中对通常lingering的理解：即一般认为lingering 都不会呆很久

chioce C 指出 acustomer of the Hollywoodwho would choose to sit at a tall table可能会是例外，从而weaken 了结论

作者: narcissus贝贝 时间: 2012-12-3 14:07
个人觉得楼主解释有问题，C就是直接削弱了假设，而D是错误的。gmat有一个原则就是根据题里的条件来做题，楼主对D的解释显然违背了这个原则，就是想多了。针对D，就算花钱少可是我翻台次数多依然可以赚回本。。。个人见解

作者: 拧发条喵 时间: 2013-8-16 22:41
2L解释才是正确的+1

感觉LZ错误理解了linger的含义 linger指的是在餐馆呆的时间，不能直接理解为吃饭时间
这道题考点之一明显是吃饭时间和 linger时间的差别
这题的特征就在于说好莱坞餐馆有明星，大家是来看明星的，所以花的时间长，跟一般餐馆不一样
Moreover, dinners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated on standard height tables.
这里的typically更证明了要攻击题干中盲目的generalization

作者: elliesunny 时间: 2013-10-14 04:34
切中要害啊，其实题目根本没在问weaken。而是说他为什么weak啊！
把on the ground that 改成because就好多了

作者: trtian 时间: 2013-10-14 13:29

这道题，我也做错呢，一开始也以为是weaken的题目。但在错题重做后这题仍然是我的错题

。才仔细推敲，发现对题干的理解马虎，导致不能正确锁定答案。我个人觉得这个题目应该是flaw in reasoning，找出argument的逻辑错误。如果是这样的话，答案就很容易选出来了，有新内容的就不是答案。并且，题干也清晰的说出，问题出在author assume了一个事情，那么集中在premise的漏洞上，便不难找出答案。

以上供参考切与elliesunny的观点谋和。希望丰富讨论的层次，继而对大家有帮助

作者: aiyang213 时间: 2013-11-3 13:45
dddddddddddd!

作者: 兰心寒 时间: 2013-11-10 20:48
OG13 OA是B啊，为什么都说是C呢？

作者: 兰心寒 时间: 2013-11-10 20:56
原来题目不一样啊，当我什么都没suo好了

作者: kakadinho 时间: 2013-12-17 21:19
我也做错了，搜到CD这道题，因为彻底搞懂了，所以写一下，希望帮到后来者。

首先，楼主搞错了，不是假设，理由是：
1. 假设是author believes MUST BE TRUE, 那question stem应该是：The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reasons to believe that it must be true that... 而不是 it is likely that
2. 正确选项C说的是：有选择坐高桌子的顾客可能是关于逗留的一般论断（diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables）的例外, 也就是说坐高桌子的人也可能逗留很久。如果这个must be true, 则原文结论被削弱；正好和假设相反（假设是something must be true to make argument solid）。

所以，题干应该是： The argument is weak(vulnerable to criticism) because(on the grounds that) it may conversely informs us(gives reason to believe) something unfavorable to its logic.(通过“criticism”推出，必须是什么不利的内容)
总结两个条件：1. 必须原文信息有所涉及; 2. 必须是削弱的；

ABE 无关
C 原文说了看明星，所以当然有可能等很久明星，所以是 “坐高桌子就待不长”的例外，符合条件1,2；
D 只符合削弱，但原文丝毫没有涉及，不符合（gives reason to believe）

最后，发现楼上说的外国论坛就是Ron大神的话：
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr-gprep2-t1736.html

作者: qzawxs9876 时间: 2014-1-6 04:21
' Most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds 、most vulnerable to criticism 、most vulnerable to ' 是 Flaw in the reasoning 题型
这类问题是找推理的缺陷 ，不像weaken的答案这么宽泛，所以答案中每个元素都必须在原文出现过

C.a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering 是文章推理的一个错误假设
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如果成立，当然造成答案有缺陷，但是没有这样假设

如果当成assumption做，选出来没问题，因为Flaw跟 Find the assumption本来就是相对的，但这一定是事后分析这道题的时候把'assumption‘活生生嵌进了这道题。。。

作者: liuxusean 时间: 2014-5-2 14:04
顶楼上，根据Bible分类，这道题应该是flaw in the reasoning

作者: 马里兰 时间: 2014-5-15 01:29

qzawxs9876 发表于 2014-1-6 04:21
' Most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds 、most vulnerable to criticism 、most vulnerable to ' ...

太有用了

作者: 毅仔 时间: 2014-10-27 19:34
国外外站是对的。exception to the generalization就是待得反而更久了，桌子周转率下降。。。

作者: lesoleil29 时间: 2014-10-28 01:16
本来选了D, 看了楼主的解释才恍然意识到D是相反的!! 谢谢楼主~~~

作者: ZJPt找到M 时间: 2015-4-6 17:25
个人觉得这个帖子里的几位解释的更好 http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-322337-2-1.html
正确答案不用说了，Manhattan里Ron讲解的很明白，但这题也不能算作weaken（针对D选项来说）
当然，重要的还是看明白题干，链接贴里的几位已经解释的很清楚了：
The argument is vulnerable to criticism on thegrounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that"

作者: 阿拉梦 时间: 2015-4-21 14:18
一开始也做错了，看完了大家的理解，越看越晕，后来还是从理解的角度想通了：
结论  是如果HOLLYWOOD餐厅把一些座位改为高脚桌椅，（由于这样一来顾客能更好看到明星且逗留时间更短）所以利润会增加
问题  什么原因会导致对批评这一结论的人无力反驳？
C正确  因为选择在该餐馆坐高脚桌椅的顾客并不会像大众认为的那样因为坐的是高脚就逗留更短时间（从而达不到预期目的）
D不对我觉得是因为没有指明HOLLYWOOD

作者: perl 时间: 2015-11-3 09:57
额，这道题目果然难道不少人。上面提到的外国网站就是曼哈顿，那个解释就是Ron给的。。。Ron最近加了一个新的回复：

most importantly—

• if this problem still confuses you after a while, just walk away from it. then come back to it after a couple of weeks.

• at that point you'll have 'new eyes', and you might find that you suddenly have a better intuition for what's going on here.

• if the problem still confuses you at that point, then just...
...smile,
and
...ignore it.

this single problem is, quite clearly, of little importance overall. (i think it's the only GMAC problem ever in this particular format.)
do not let it distract you from more fundamental concerns.

作者: 弥小岛 时间: 2016-7-15 23:34
这道题根据bible其实是flaw in reasoning，（大家可以自行看bible）所以是像推论题一样出自文中的答案
根据bible，是犯了Exceptional Case/Overgeneralization这个flaw，将一般餐厅的情况（长椅子时间更短）apply到hollywood上，而忽略了Hollywood有一个看秀的可能性会是特例

作者: xyxyxy_123 时间: 2016-11-14 21:22

narcissus贝贝发表于 2012-12-3 14:07
个人觉得楼主解释有问题，C就是直接削弱了假设，而D是错误的。gmat有一个原则就是根据题里的条件来做题，楼 ...

同意！

作者: wangheyao 时间: 2017-11-22 14:44
题目问法：argument可以被削弱是因为它有理由让我们认为….是有可能的（其实就是问weaken）
C：题目中diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables. 指的是在所有餐厅中坐在stools的人停留时间会更短。C选项指出Hollywood餐厅是个例外，H的客人是要来看明星的所以即使是坐在stools上也会停留更多时间。
C选项并没有反对premise，而是比D更好的削弱了conclusion。
D：待的时间更短而花费也更少，这不代表总的收入不会上升。因为不知道到底是哪一个因素造成的影响更大，所以不能削弱

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