标题: 大家进来看看这题，我一直都糊里糊涂的，答案是什么意思啊！！！！！！ [打印本页] 作者: crystalhuang 时间: 2010-12-23 13:21 标题: 大家进来看看这题，我一直都糊里糊涂的，答案是什么意思啊！！！！！！ 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 C作者: gaor 时间: 2010-12-24 23:53
有帖子讨论过，可以参考一下 http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-504923-1-1.html作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-25 00:56
The answer is C.
First of all, this is a paradox question and the question stem asks you to find the criticism. So let's analyze the argument.
Premises: 1) Customers come to Hollywood Restaurant to watch the celebrities so customrs would prefer tall tables to get a better view. 2) Diners seated on stools typically stay a shorter time than diners on regular seats.
Conclusion: If the Hollywood replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, its profits would increase.
Basically, the argument says that stools would attract more customers and customers sitting on stools turn over quickly. Therefore, profits would be up. Wait a minute. Based on premise 1, if the customers are attracted to the restaraunt because they want to see celebrities, shouldn't they stay LONGER than normal customers? If so, it runs contrary to premise 2 which describes a general trend in customer's lingering behavior. The customer attracted might sit on the stools for a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time without spending much on food. No turnover, no money!
C points out this paradox and C is the correct answer.