ChaseDream

标题: 好莱坞餐馆高桌椅的题！！不懂啊！！ [打印本页]

作者: wellmichelle 时间: 2012-10-2 13:25
标题: 好莱坞餐馆高桌椅的题！！不懂啊！！
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

我还是不懂，C中意思是“高桌椅还是能吸引顾客的，但是他们还是会停留很长时间”，其实这也是attract more consumer, 和 consumer linger longer 之间的tradeoff呀，不跟D中 linger shorter 和 spend less的tradeoff一样无法直接说是WEAKEN么？？

作者: HarrisZheng 时间: 2012-10-2 15:51
这个题目不是weaken题

其实问的是这个论证的错误

前提一：高凳子吸引顾客
前提二：坐高凳子的人呆的时间短

结论：换高凳子可以提高利润

请注意问题的问法 The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it（指代argument） gives reason to believe that it is likely that

这个论证会让人很容易认为xxx，所以这个论证不堪一击。

C 说选高凳子的人是例外，他们呆的时间不短。（这是前提1暗含的：这些人就是为了看明星去的，理所应当多呆着多看会儿）也就是说和前提2是矛盾的

作者: wellmichelle 时间: 2012-10-2 22:21
恩恩，说得对。我以后一定做题感觉不对要回头再审一遍题！

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-10-2 23:19
我不是很同意二楼的看法。

1 我觉得这就是weaken题目。找到一个逻辑漏洞，不就是证明这个argument 的最终是不成立的。这不就是在做weaken吗

2. 我觉得 C 项说的是即使很多人选高凳子，可能也不是在消费，而是只是来看明星的。所以，很多高凳子不会使得argument 的最后结论成立，即 profit will increase.

简单来说，就是高凳子可能会给有益处，就像题干中说的那样；也可能有坏处。

作者: HarrisZheng 时间: 2012-10-2 23:22
无所谓你当weaken能做对也行

作者: wellmichelle 时间: 2012-10-3 12:52
可是你这个逻辑对D也同样适用哦

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-10-4 15:42
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

Reasoning：就是高凳子有有个好处，一个是顾客可以有好的视野，二是逗留在高凳子上的时间短。结论就是，换了这些高凳子，餐馆的利润会增加。

A 明星选择坐高凳子。这个选项有些小strengthen, 明星来店里，是个assumption , 否则的话，为看明星的顾客就不来了。

B Irrelevant. 餐馆虽然等候的时间长，但是价格的优势可以补偿这个等候时间。利润呢，还是没有谈利润。

C意思是说，顾客选择高凳子不是一般意义上的，在那里干坐着，而是会花钱吃饭的，是会给餐厅创造利润的。所以，结论是成立的。但是，通常情况却是，消费者坐在高凳子上，只是坐着，不花钱，不给餐厅创造利润。很显然，C项，这个很难成立的assumption，支撑结论得以成立。

D这个是weaken.

E这个也是weaken

C, 和 D， E的不同在于， C只是在找那个很荒谬的assumption。因为这个assumption 是错的，所以这个结论也是错的。 DE是直接上来做weaken. 按题目要求，C对。

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-10-4 15:46
这个题是不是OG题呀，我怎么搜索不到呀。

作者: 圆圆大芒果 时间: 2012-10-4 15:59
OG上有个相似的题，但是选项不同。

作者: wilincl9321 时间: 2012-10-6 03:01
in choice C, I have a different view

"among lingering people( come to watch the celebrities ）, a customer who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception"

it implies: even if the Hollywood Restaurant replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, it wouldn't attract more lingering people to sit and buy food.

lingering people are lingering people!

作者: hlhlhlt 时间: 2012-10-31 17:34
我怎么觉得C的意思是不看明星的人轻易不会坐高桌啊。。。。lingering people不是指得粉丝吧？我觉得这是从另外一个方向使得题目结论vulnerable。

不是来餐馆的所有客人都是来看明星的还是有很多本地人来吃饭的，这个C的第一句话：a customer of the Hollywood 我觉得是强调好莱坞本地人。

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-10-31 21:00
好多疑问呀。

但是我还是坚持我对C项的理解。

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-11-17 19:36

in choice C, I have a different view

"among lingering people( come to watch the celebrities ）, a customer who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception"
it implies: even if the Hollywood Restaurant replaced some of its seating with high tables and stools, it wouldn't attract more lingering people to sit and buy food.

lingering people are lingering people!

-- by 会员 wilincl9321 (2012/10/6 3:01:21)

我现在有些能接受这个观点，但是还是有些小的出入：

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

我觉得C项这个选项是个很容易让人不知道lingering的具体意思是什么。开始我依照我的字典意思，认为linger是闲逛的意思。
linger ：to continue to exist, be noticeable etc for longer than is usual or desirable
但是结合B项，C项这里的linger 说的应该是，吃饭上的linger, 就是吃饭拖拖拉拉。

反过来再看整个题目的结构是：
前提：高凳子有两个好处，更容易看明星；这样的高的桌子上吃饭，花的时间短。
结论：换高凳子可以给餐馆带来利润的增长。
问题是： weaken (weaken 最强的就是对assumption的攻击)
其实这个问题就是在考察：整个方案好处能不能转换为实实在在利润，好方案不一定有好利润。

"among lingering people( come to watch the celebrities ）, a customer who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception" ---wilincl9321 (2012/10/6 3:01:21)

"among lingering people( the people who spend time lingering over their meals.）, a customer who would choose to sit at a tall table would be an exception"
也就是在高凳子上就餐的人不是那种一般的，吃饭花一些时间的人。消费者没有把就餐的舒适作为消费的一个条件，所以他们在这样的桌子上也会花钱消费，餐馆的利润也会上升。
显然，这个解释的成立是很弱的，一般人都是要花些时间吃饭的。所以，基于这个前提的结论成立也就难了。

那D为什么不对呢？
这个选项和结论没有关系的。
正像前面所说，考察的是换高凳子是不是能给餐馆带来利润。吃饭时间短的人，在换高凳子前后对餐馆利润的影响是一样的。

（我不想再碰这个话题了，同时也希望我有些对了。）

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