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 为什么不选D啊， 题里不是说坐在stool吃饭的人时间短， D里说吃的时间短的人order less expensive meals， 为什么不对啊？作者: kikisunflower 时间: 2011-5-30 16:59
D casts doubt on the conclusion but fails to weaken the conclusion as much as C does. Even though D is right, the conclusion is not necessarily wrong.
conclusion: replace current seating with high tables → profit ↑
support: 1. many customers prefer high tables 2. choosing high tables→less lingering time
C states that there is no causal relationship between "choosing high tables" and "less lingering time", and thus breaks support 2 to weaken the conclusion.作者: ba80418 时间: 2011-6-20 15:48
楼上v5！