标题: pp的一道题目，求高手解答，重谢 [打印本页] 作者: jackychen26 时间: 2011-8-3 08:41 标题: pp的一道题目，求高手解答，重谢 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
答案c的意思不是不逗留的意思，为什么是正确选项？求解作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-3 09:10
Lingering here is a noun, not an adjective. So lingering means sojourn, tarriance, or plainly, stay.
What C) says is: a customer of the Hollywood who would choose to sit at a tall table (stay longer to view celebrities) would be an exception to the generalization about lingering (diners seated on stools typically do not stay as long as diners seated at standard-height tables).
As to stay longer to see the celebrities part, it is just common sense, albeit a tricky one.
C) does not attack premises. C) simply points out that both premises cannot be valid at the same time for the conclusion to hold. Individually, both premises are correct. But when you combine the two premises together, you cannot get the conclusion the argument tries to reach.作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-3 09:12
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.作者: edmondxie 时间: 2011-8-3 12:08
Agree to sdcar2010
所以，只有2能够达到从题设推个东西否定本题。1无法否定，3不存在这样想撞墙的人作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-8-3 12:19
LS, good job in translating this problem in simple Chinese.作者: jackychen26 时间: 2011-8-3 18:46
你的分析厉害，但考场有限时间不一定想这么多作者: jackychen26 时间: 2011-8-3 18:48
看来是我没把问题理解透作者: AlohaDJ 时间: 2011-8-12 01:41
体会所得：由两个或多个premises推出一个conclusion,留意这些premises内部矛盾，正是这些"自相矛盾"是最好的weaken方法。作者: 邦得 时间: 2011-8-20 05:24
我觉得二楼说的很好 但是很多人可能有些地方还是有点难理解 我自己的一些领悟 欢迎大家探讨 其实我觉得这道题之所以难 是因为有些句子比较难理解 这道题的提问很关键：The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it gives reason to believe that it is likely that 这里的it指代的是argument，即问作者的推断过程有理由使我们相信很有可能咋样，而这个“咋样”会成为批评者的理由来反对作者的逻辑推理 （即我们要找作者推理的自相矛盾的地方） 作者的推断二楼说了 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.