17。 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 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 hollywood to be seen , 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 accomodate all the Hollywoods customers interested in such seating , there would be no view except of other tall tables作者: winny莹 时间: 2010-9-13 09:48
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-483304-1-1.html作者: ken178 时间: 2010-9-13 10:10
其实这题的问法是不是要支持文章换high tables and stools,its profits would increase这个结论啊？我怎么觉得选E？不过看了都是说选C和D。不明白作者: bloombergable 时间: 2012-5-3 07:35
This is a flaw question rather than a weaken question.
The main difference between flaw and weakening questions is in the types of answers that we see. For flaw, the answers are general statements about the logic of the argument, one of which accurately characterizes the problem; for weakening, the answers are true facts about the world, one of which makes us doubt that the conclusion is true.
Therefore answer D gives us a weakening reason while answer C clearly tells us a logical flaw of the argument. Here we go the logic:
The argument assumes 1. most of customers in Hollywood would be celebrity watcher 2. Tall table sitters would not be stay for long What's wrong with these assumptions? There is some flaw here...Since these tall table customers are mainly here for watching celebrities, they are not typical stool sitters... they will follow whenever they need to stick with celebrities they are watching....so they might stay much longer than normal typical stool sitters.
And this is the flaw of the logic!
so Answer C pointed out the flaw: a customer of the hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception to the generalization about lingering
while answer D is a normal weakening option.....but again, this is not really a weakening question.
To be honest this is a very tough one, when you see this question, you should celebrate, because that means you are hitting the top top tier of the gmat takers....
And, if you meet these flaw questions again, please just treat them as weakening question, this is a exception to the generalization about FLAW question, which contains both flaw option and weakening option....
way too tricky.
99% of the flaw questions, treat them as weakening one
